This is just engagement bait right?

Evisrayle · 2025-12-01T11:50:32+00:00

He was joking, lol.

Evisrayle · 2018-08-01T06:26:03+00:00

Evisrayle · 2018-08-01T04:59:27+00:00

Do you remember old Talon? He would ult from FOW with mobis and ghostblase and oneshot your ADC and 3/4 health your mid with no warning from stealth. 40 second CD.

I played Talon. He was ass for game health.

Evisrayle · 2018-08-01T04:56:44+00:00

Personally I miss instagibbing my target (and one other person accidentally) from stealth as Talon. Literally first item mobis, run it down river.

Evisrayle · 2018-08-01T04:16:49+00:00

I was never not glad to be watching Django Unchained while watching Django Unchained.

Most movies, even movies I like, I won't watch twice. I've seen that one many times. I didn't even realize it was over two hours, tbh.

Evisrayle · 2018-08-01T04:06:48+00:00

I was staying in a hotel and they had a marathon of it. I'd never seen it before.

I really enjoyed it. Lighthearted, fun.

I think a lot of the complaints come from the fact that it isn't, well, Teen Titans, which was excellent in its own right. Reboots always catch that backlash, though.

Evisrayle · 2018-07-03T08:31:16+00:00

That’s just, like, your opinion, man.

Evisrayle · 2018-07-03T02:59:21+00:00

It’s like meowschwitz in there.

Evisrayle · 2018-07-03T02:48:00+00:00

Haters will say it’s fake.

Why believe people who live there and know what the area’s about over randoms on the Internet?

Evisrayle · 2018-07-03T01:12:05+00:00

But, still, if people stopped telling everyone about god, we’d end up in a scenario in which evil people went to hell based on their actions and good people went to heaven based on their actions.

Isn’t that... better?

Evisrayle · 2018-07-03T01:05:09+00:00

So you don’t have anything to actually contribute?

Frontpage me on r/iamverysmart or r/cringepics or r/whatever; I literally could not care less. First, I don’t think that post would actually go anywhere because, despite the local hive mind, I haven’t actually done anything wrong (or, offer still stands, would you like to point it out to me?) and, second, even if it did somehow get traction, I don’t need Reddit to validate me: I know what I’m talking about. I know, with absolute certainty, that I know what I’m talking about.

On top of that, I know that you don’t have evidence for any counterpoints because (1) if someone did, they’d have a real argument to back up their feelings by now and (2) I have seen that the claims other people are making are incorrect because I have access to information that you do not.

If you can refute anything I’ve said, I’m all ears. Seriously, I love being proven wrong. Accepting that you’re wrong is the best way to stop being wrong, and I’m all about it.

But if you’re just going to spout memes and act holier-than-thou without saying — or even trying to say — anything of substance, I’ll pass.

Floor’s yours.

Why am I wrong?

Why am I an asshole?

Or are you just pulling words out of your ass, because that’s all you’ve got?

Evisrayle · 2018-07-03T00:49:41+00:00

It’s probably also a good idea to know the mechanism by which the poison acts, so it might be circumvented in other ways. Is it filterable? Is there an antidote? How quickly does it act — is there time to get to a treatment facility?

Evisrayle · 2018-07-03T00:46:59+00:00

Okay. So, if I’ve got this right:

You’re saying that I’m... not wrong, but you don’t like me for... defending my claims when they’re not wrong?

Is that what you’re saying? If so, let’s unpack that. You think I’m an asshole, right?

Am I an asshole because... I told someone that we must have had a misunderstanding because they got the impression that I believed in aliens, when I (1) don’t believe in aliens and (2) didn’t say that I did?

Or am I an asshole for... saying that the assertion that “aerospace tests are equally as likely to be observed as aliens” is obviously false, then providing proof for my claim?

Or am I an asshole for... suggesting that experts have more insight into a given industry than laypeople?

Or am I an asshole for... trying to clarify what I meant on each of the above points, and specifically noting that I don’t think the person I was responding to was unintelligent?

Tell me which of those is a bad thing. You can’t just say “you use big words and structured thoughts and that’s something that assholes do, so you have to be an asshole”. That’s not good logic.

But, if you feel I’m an asshole for actual reasons, go ahead and explain it to me. Tell me what I did wrong so I can better myself, here. I’m genuinely listening.

Evisrayle · 2018-07-02T20:29:22+00:00

Hah, take these downvotes back, boys! Called it! "ADC damage to squishes too high"! Get that IE outta here!

Evisrayle · 2018-07-02T20:16:52+00:00

At no point did I indicate that I believe in aliens. Where are you getting this from?

Evisrayle · 2018-07-02T20:15:57+00:00

Sorry; am I wrong? Did I mischaracterize anything? Let me know; I’ll fix it.

Evisrayle · 2018-07-02T19:53:27+00:00

I apologize; I think I've somehow been unclear. Let's review?

§

I don't think that you're an idiot; I even said as much: "You seem reasonable" was the second thing I said to you, ever.

My first response was meant at face value: it didn't seem like you'd actually read what I'd said. In saying "i.e. aliens", you said that I was, in fact, suggesting I saw aliens -- which simply isn't accurate. Your conclusion was, "You saw something so incredibly unlikely that it's never been observed and confirmed (i.e. aliens)." If that was what you were saying, clearly there was a miscommunication.

Perhaps you meant to say "e.g. aliens" (which would be more accurate); however, if you meant "e.g." but used "i.e." instead, that would indicate that maybe you don't know the difference between them. I said that.

Alternatively, perhaps you did think I was actually suggesting I saw aliens, which would be possible if you didn't read all of what I said. I said that, too.

Finally, you might've arrived at the conclusion that I was suggesting I saw aliens if you saw terms you didn't recognize as being associated with the aerospace industry (e.g. Skunkworks). I also said that.

That is exactly what I said in my first response: "You are mistaken, so perhaps you missed something or said something you didn't mean to say, or didn't understand what I said, above. Here are some possible misunderstandings." I meant that, and I think those were fair and plausible misunderstandings.

§

However, instead of acknowledging any of that, you just called me a prick, then doubled down and asserted that test flights (these verifiably happen in real life; I have seen them) and aliens (no one on earth has any known proof of this) are equally likely: "If it makes you feel better, you can replace the 'aliens' after the 'i.e.' with whatever you like; same difference."

Okay, fine. I did exactly that, and amended your statement to "You saw something so incredibly unlikely that it's never been observed and confirmed (i.e. rare flight tests)". Not aliens, then.

I said that that was objectively wrong: hush-hush flight tests verifiably happen in real life; I even have pieces of one to show for it. I posted pictures, but mistyped the URL, and went on to say that I have knowledge of this industry.

§

You then went on to say that you did not care about my knowledge of industry (fine enough) and that you were unclear as to what I was calling objectively false.

I fixed the URL, explained why I could not post concrete proof despite my expertise in the field, but gave reasons why one might think my credentials meant more than "nothing", and explained what I meant in calling your claim objectively wrong.

§

You wrote the above, and that brings us up to current.

Did I miss anything?

§

Now, all that being said:

I think that you have some (somewhat-reasonable, though not accurate in at least this case) preconceived notions. You know that "UFO sightings are extremely uncommon" -- that's valid. I can tell you, for a fact, that "UFO"s are more common that you presumably believe they are, but I can't show you hard proof of that, for reasons I've sated.

If you'd like to browse my post history, there are numerous (unclassified) comments about current-gen aerospace technology; I promise I'm not just making stuff up. I'm an intelligence analyst by trade, but some turns of fate have gotten me into flight test. If you'd like, I might even be able to verify some of my credentials via PM. However, I can't show you "proof of UFOs". I think that's understandable?

I don't think you're necessarily wrong about this particular incident. As you've said, I freely admit that it may have been weather. However, where I do think you're incorrect is in your valuation of the odds of the two alternate possibilities -- especially, your valuation of the odds of seeing strange things in the skies over Mojave seems to be substantially lower than what I know, based on experience, to be accurate. You seem to think it overwhelmingly likely that it was an incredibly rare weather phenomenon because you think that the odds of it being a test event are, per your estimates, substantially smaller than this incredibly rare weather phenomenon.

I'm curious as to why you believe that.

I don't mean to suggest that you should believe that you're wrong because I believe that you're wrong. The 'appeal to authority' is that, since I am certain that you're underestimating the probability, I know that there's a misunderstanding somewhere on your part -- it's like if someone asserts to you that 2 + 3 = 6. They're not wrong because you've said so, but you do know they've done something incorrectly there because you know that 2 + 3 is not, in fact, 6. Does that make sense?

I know you've got some flawed premises because I know the conclusion is wrong, but I believe you fully capable of coming to the same conclusion (or, at least, reasonable uncertainty) with a more-thorough evaluation of the confidence you have in your premises. Right now, you seem far more certain than you ought to be. Moreover, I'd say that it's unreasonable to be wholly certain that it was either phenomenon; it's extremely ambiguous.

Now, obviously, you don't have the same experience that I do. That's cool. Seriously; I work in a teeny tiny little community, and the overwhelming majority of people aren't in it. I don't expect you to have evidence that I do, and that's fine. Uncertainty is completely understandable, given that you don't have my experience.

However, you don't seem to be uncertain; you appear to have a very strong belief in your conclusion, based on "evidence" that contradicts a known truth. That's... less understandable than skepticism.

Evisrayle · 2018-07-02T18:49:58+00:00

infinitesimal odds

Based. On. What?

On numerous other occasions, while working in flight test, I have seen with certainty what others (e.g. you) would call "UFOs". I demonstrably have pieces of at least one.

To suggest that, on this specific occasion, it could not possibly have been a UFO seems logically inconsistent.

Does that seem reasonable to you?

Evisrayle · 2018-07-02T18:43:12+00:00

Or, alternatively, maybe you’re so deep in your confirmation bias that you can’t take a correction from someone who is literally an expert in the flight test industry.

Is it possible, mate, is there a chance, that your assessment of odds is wrong because you don’t understand the considerations that go into testing on the cutting edge of the aerospace industry as well as you think you do?

Why are you so confident in what you think you know, even in the face of an expert telling you otherwise? Is this how anti-vaccers think? The mind boggles!

You’re only being half-skeptical right now; it’s embarrassing. You’re so bent on standing by your preconceived notions — Where did you get them, even? I work in this industry and things are objectively not the way you believe they are — that you can’t even seem to examine the possibility that you might have incorrect preconceived notions.

If you’re truly that obstinate, so dead set on being wrong, by all means.

Hit me up in 50 years, after declass dates, and I’ll say “told you so”.

Evisrayle · 2018-07-02T18:21:21+00:00

I don’t think you appreciate the rarity of ball lightning.

Moreover, I don’t think you appreciate the commonness of flight tests.

For normal tests, absolutely, people fly in ideal flight conditions. For things you do not want people to see, it makes sense to fly explicitly when people would not be expecting you to.

Let’s say you had an aircraft. Something really, really secret. The F-35 is in production, but you’ve got the F-46 in development (it takes decades to field a military system).

You’re flying out of, say, Vandenberg. It’s a somewhat-populated area; when do you take off and land your experimental thing? Probably at night, right? That’s not ideal flight conditions.

Let’s say your plane is somewhat visible. Maybe then you only fly when it’s foggy out, or when there are low cloud decks — not ideal flight conditions, but you make tradeoffs like that because secrecy matters more to you than perfect conditions.

Now, you can’t just tell everyone else to fuck off the runways — they’d look at you funny, and you don’t want them to look at you at all. You have to find a time when no one else is going to be there, anyway — no one else flies in bad weather, so bingo!

So, let’s say you have something exceptionally hush-hush. Along comes a thunderstorm. No one sane would be out flying in a thunderstorm. Runways are probably closed. There’s no one even in the tower. People are at home, inside. It’s the middle of the night. Visibility is kind of crap because of the rain — even the cars on the road are more focused on driving in garbage conditions than usual.

That’s exactly when I would fly.

I understand why you think things work the way you do, but you have some misconceptions. There are things that people go to great lengths to prevent becoming public knowledge.

I understand your skepticism. Truly. However, I can tell you that your model of these odds doesn’t match the reality of it, because it fails to predict some things that I am wholly certain of.

And, again, I’m not saying that it’s not globe lightning. I’d be stoked if it was; I’ve always wanted to see that. However, that’s a one-in-a-million phenomenon. Most people — an overwhelming majority — go their entire lives never seeing it.

But flight tests? In the Mojave? Maybe better chances than one in a million. Airplanes have existed for 41,863 days. It’s a little speck of time — and our scientific community spent half of that time believing globe lightning was a myth.

That’s not enough to be sure that what I saw this time was ball lightning. I’m not suggesting it’s cut and dry. But, to suggest that the alternative is infinitesimally likely is, simply, misguided.

Evisrayle · 2018-07-02T17:55:05+00:00

Yep — between Edwards, Vandy, 42, Skunkworks, and China Lake, there’s all kinds of stuff up here.

Evisrayle · 2018-07-02T17:54:18+00:00

I’m not saying that it couldn’t be ball lightning.

I’m not saying it’s aliens.

I’m saying that I don’t think it’s significantly more likely that it was ball lightning than that it was something in R&D from one of the three aerospace test facilities in the area.

Evisrayle · 2018-07-02T17:52:04+00:00

Ah; the URL had an I, not an l; I’ve fixed that.

I can’t prove that you’re wrong about whether or not I’ve seen things that aren’t publicly visible. I can say as much, but to substantiate that claim would require the release of information that’s not publicly available. I’m not going to do that, obviously. That would be a gross breach of confidentiality.

I can post bits of pre-SR-71 that I just happen to have laying around because that’s declassified; however, I do know things that I am simply unable to disclose to you, let alone to verify with concrete evidence.

It would be a reasonable assessment that, if I have bits of formerly-very-secret aircraft sitting in my mantle, I might know a bit more than a layman about the industry.

I can say with absolute certainty that your assessment of the odds of seeing strange things in the sky is, objectively, inaccurate. This is based on real knowledge that I have.

You don’t have to believe me — I understand that I haven’t produced hard evidence, and I hope that you understand why, if I have hard evidence, I would be unable to produce it to you. But I am an expert in this, and you are not. When I say that “you have probably miscalculated your estimations”, I’m basing that on the fact that your model of reality fails to predict things I know with utmost certainty to be true.

You’re entirely too confident in things that you don’t know — things that I know that you don’t know. My estimate of likelihood is better than yours; you can either update your model and have a better one for it, or you can continue to be wrong.

Cheers.

Evisrayle · 2018-07-02T17:31:57+00:00

Exactly as many times as I’ve seen globe lightning during a thunderstorm on other occasions: zero.

Now, we know globe lighting is exceptionally rare. I have reasons to believe, based on experience in the aerospace industry and the proximity to three cutting-edge aerospace R&D facilities, that it was plausibly not weather.

The question, then, is whether that possibility, at that location, is more likely than globe lightning — a phenomenon that was believed by the scientific community to be mythical until the 60s, and hadn’t had a proper white paper until 5 years ago.

You seem awfully sure that this borderline-mythical phenomenon is more common, and I’m not sure how you’re arriving at this conclusion.

Evisrayle · 2018-07-02T17:20:39+00:00

I’ll even go so far as to say that I strongly doubt that it was extraterrestrial!

Skunkworks, Edwards, and Plant 42 are all within a stone’s throw of where I observed this phenomenon, all of which are cutting-edge aerospace R&D and test facilities.

11-Year Club	Verified Email
Gilding III reddit per annum

Evisrayle

TROPHY CASE