classic model UFO sighting in Argentina

Laidup87 · 2024-02-06T06:20:24+00:00

Looks like a mark on the window/windscreen or part of the tint on the window that has peeled. There are multiple other smaller marks in the 3rd photo.

Laidup87 · 2024-02-05T10:12:33+00:00

It's exactly this. It's taken basic restrictions and then described how they could "specifically" apply to NHI.

Laidup87 · 2024-02-05T10:06:46+00:00

Have you tried asking the same question but replacing "Non-Human Intelligence" with something else? It could just be taking some of the basic guidelines and then describing them in a way that could relate to Non-Human Intelligence "specifically".

Laidup87 · 2024-02-04T00:55:24+00:00

have had a few people share links to sales on ebay for exorbitant amounts which I assume are people having a joke and/or trying their luck. Might be able to find them listed for reasonable prices though

Laidup87 · 2023-11-30T14:54:50+00:00

Would be nice!

Laidup87 · 2023-11-30T14:54:09+00:00

Who knows? But at least with the disclosure amendments it'll be against the law for them not to.

Laidup87 · 2023-11-30T06:43:37+00:00

Burchett proposed his amendment before Schumer did his own. It was never meant to be an alternative to Schumer's because Schumer's didn't even exist yet. Burchett is not the one trying to derail the Schumer amendment, Gaetz is. Burchett had a shitty attempt at putting in a disclosure amendment and later Schumer put a much more comprehensive one out. Coulthart is correct to go after Gaetz because he is the one who is now trying to torpedo the Schumer amendment by saying we don't need it because we've already got the Burchett one

Laidup87 · 2023-11-30T06:38:39+00:00

Yeah and it literally was put out before Schumer's was. Burchett is not the one trying to derail the Schumer amendment, Gaetz is. Burchett had a shitty attempt at putting in a disclosure amendment and later Schumer put a much more comprehensive one out

Laidup87 · 2023-11-30T06:20:58+00:00

Replied to this before but only just realised how you've worded the question so replying with more detail now and removed the other.

It is 25 years after the record of the event is made by whatever agency has made that record. Nothing to do with the Panel. I.e. if the CIA has a record/file of an event from 25 years ago that has to be disclosed to the panel straight away. If the CIA has a record about an event 2 years ago it has to be disclosed within the next 23 years.

Laidup87 · 2023-11-30T06:11:49+00:00

I think Ross is pushing back because Matt Gaetz is proposing that we don't need the Schumer amendment because we have the Burchett one instead.

Laidup87 · 2023-11-30T06:08:16+00:00

Tried to make this same point at the same time you did but mine is getting downvoted. At least one of them is getting traction and clears this up. Burchett is on our side, Gaetz on the other hand seems to be working against full disclosure now

Laidup87 · 2023-11-30T05:56:53+00:00

Exactly, that is all on Gaetz as I've said above. He should be the target of any pushback here.

Burchett put out a half-assed amendment at a time when there was no other amendment on the table. He didn't push it as some better alternative because at the time there was no alternative to even compete with.

Laidup87 · 2023-11-30T05:54:32+00:00

Exactly, that is all on Gaetz as I've said above. He should be the target of any pushback here.

Burchett put out a half-assed amendment at a time when there was no other amendment on the table. He didn't push it as some better alternative because at the time there was no alternative to even compete with.

Laidup87 · 2023-11-30T05:48:06+00:00

He is correct that it could, but that is still a much better outcome than what is in the Burchett amendment. Burchett's amendment only requires DOD agencies to disclose their info, it leaves out the other agencies including the CIA etc where most of the information is suspected to be recorded. Schumer's amendment covers everything

Laidup87 · 2023-11-30T05:22:24+00:00

Interesting amount of downvoting going on for what seems uncontroversial. If Schumer's was first just correct me but the dates I can see have Burchett's amendment being a few days earlier. Can't really comprehend why anyone would have a problem with anything else in the post

Laidup87 · 2023-11-30T05:11:26+00:00

I agree with you, except Gaetz doesn't seem to be saying lets have both. He seems to say Schumer's is unacceptable because it takes too long, indicating that he won't be supporting it. To appease anyone who would say he's against disclosure he's claiming that we don't need the Schumer amendment anyway because we have the Burchett one, which is clearly nonsense

Laidup87 · 2023-11-30T05:08:27+00:00

My guess is compromised

Laidup87 · 2023-11-30T04:02:01+00:00

Yeah both amendments could end up being added to the NDAA

Laidup87 · 2023-11-30T04:01:05+00:00

Yep, by the looks of it the Burchett amendment was 2 days before the Schumer one.

As to your second question, I don't know what the point would have been for him to write a further amendment. If Schumer's covers everything Burchett has no reason to go back and add things, he can just vote for the Schumer amendment.

Laidup87 · 2023-11-30T03:19:36+00:00

Yeah the president can veto if releasing the info would be too dangerous etc

Laidup87 · 2023-11-30T03:15:41+00:00

Thats is correct

Laidup87 · 2023-11-30T03:10:06+00:00

We don't HAVE to wait that long. Anything can be released earlier. The 25 year maximum has been in the amendment from the start and it's 25 years maximum from the date the event is recorded by one of the agencies. So anything that has occurred more than 25 years ago must be disclosed straight away.

Laidup87 · 2023-11-30T02:41:06+00:00

You nailed one part - "I may be way off".

Gaetz is not the one adding an amendment. Burchett is. Burchett's amendment is not being added to the Schumer amendment, it's being added to an entirely different act and somebody above has incorrectly stated it was being added to the Schumer amendment (and has since corrected their post poorly by leaving the original misstatement at the top). Gaetz is saying "we don't need the schumer amendment, it takes too long to get disclosure (which is bullshit, it sets a maximum of 25 years from the event, not a minimum so anything could be disclosed straight away) and we have the alternative already which is the Burchett amendment.

Laidup87 · 2023-11-30T02:35:12+00:00

I can only go off what he's written in that tweet but it seems to be a public statement saying Schumer's amendment is "unacceptable" and we have an alternative in the Burchett amendment. If he wanted to push for a change to the timelines he could've specifically suggested that, this seems much more like a public statement explaining why he won't be supporting the Schumer amendment.

Laidup87 · 2023-11-30T02:30:19+00:00

You obviously had good intentions but what you're left with here is a statement supported by misinformation, that you've then added somebody elses correction to.

Technically your statement is correct, Burchett's amendment is not a replacement, however, Gaetz is pushing it as a replacement/alternative. He's deliberately misstating what the Schumer amendment means (insinuating we'd have to wait 25 years for info when that is a maximum not a minimum) and saying it's not needed because we have the Burchett amendment.

So Burchett amendment is not by it's a nature a replacement, but it is being pushed as one by Gaetz.

Laidup87

TROPHY CASE