04-11-2011, 10:23 AM
(04-11-2011, 08:52 AM)zenmaster Wrote: But it's on record as an actual event, not hearsay.
let me cast doubt on any random recorded radar image or chase like a professional debunker would : "It was a new secret aircraft in development by usaf"
Quote:But it's not. I think we see what we want to see, we create the context we want to promote the outcome we want.
there is a limit to perception. the entities using their brain to make choices, will drop resistance at a certain point. the entities who reverted to orange ray identification behavior, will doggedly deny it, and find ways to deny it. just like the ones who say 'disinfo' about this document out of the blue.
Quote:The air-force investigator was not the eyewitness. In the course of his investigations, he happened to have interviewed someone that claimed what was written down.
that is only correct about the last paragraph where the reason for the crash is reported. for the first paragraph, notice the usage of words : "air force investigator STATED that". not 'heard' or 'was reported' or 'has been told'.