Jump to content

Keef

Legacy Members
  • Posts

    477
  • Joined

Everything posted by Keef

  1. Yeah, he's nowhere near as competent a dictator as the other three.
  2. On your first question, yes. On your second question, there's usually a whole road show of publicity before you IPO. So the investment bankers that you engage have a good idea of who will buy what. But if no one buys or no one buys in the amount and at the price that you think they will, the share price craters.
  3. Yeah there are special deals cut all the time. You need the underwriters and the board to agree to it though.
  4. Not exactly. Think of a SPAC entity as just a holding company with nothing in it (there's some cash, but we'll ignore that for purposes of keeping it simple). The SPAC is publicly listed, which is an easy process since it has nothing in it. The SPAC entity searches for a private company to "merge" with, but its generally just an exchange of shares of the private company for shares of the publicly traded SPAC entity at an agreed upon valuation. The private company likes this because its a much easier way to go public instead of the traditional IPO process, but there's is an exchange of cash during the merger. Just shares of a public traded company. Those shares are typically subject to the 6 month lock-up.
  5. I know nothing about Truth Social, the SPAC entity, or the investors, but pretty much every company that goes public has a 6 month "market standoff" or "lock-up", where employees and shareholders agree not to sell any shares on the public market for 6 months. The idea is that if you get to an IPO, you don't want all your key stakeholders cashing out and messing with the early trading post going public by flooding the market with shares. I can't imagine the investors and bankers would let him sell all of them because that would hose everyone else, but maybe they permit some portion to help him with the liquidity crunch? These are, after all, investors and bankers who are working with Truth Social, so I'm sure they're all probably knee deep in the cult.
  6. Co-signed. Madrid feels a bit like an east coast style US city me.
  7. Any chance you remember what store this is at in Barcelona?
  8. I'm from Abilene, Texas and so is my mom. My dad's from near Rising Star. Both sides have been in Texas 4 generations plus. I don't ever think I will move back (and certainly not the fuck back to Abilene), but I want to be buried there someday. The dirt gets in your blood.
  9. I had a law school class with Bryan Garner. Zero self-awareness and zero humility. He got in front of the class and talked endlessly about how smart he was, pausing only to hit on some 3Ls in the front. He's like a fatter, nerdier, lawyer version of Ron Burgandy, or a chatty, far less accomplished Philip Bobbitt. I found it endlessly entertaining.
  10. I want to know where I can find these $250/hr. litigators
  11. And just wait until he meets the lawyers.
  12. Not if the impending dictatorship bans them
  13. Keef

    The Supremes

    Yep. Decapitations happened fairly frequently as well if the measurements were done wrong.
  14. No one will remember this in two weeks time because he'll say something equally crazy/insane (if it even takes that long)
  15. - If that's what you read from those quotes (and the numerous others from highly credible government officials) then I'm not sure what to say. - There's no logical jump. I'm relying on the testimony under oath from David Fravor and Ryan Graves, highly trained observers, whose observations were validated by videos, sensor readings, radar, etc., much of which the DoD still remains classified. Fravor and Graves observed maneuvers, speed changes, and propulsion that defy our understanding of physics. From Graves: "They can move at incredible speeds, they can change direction instantaneously, and they can disappear and reappear without a trace...They don't have any visible engines or propulsion systems, and they're able to perform maneuvers that are simply impossible for anything that we've ever built." The thing that bothers me is that people seem content to just say, hey, we should rule out birds, or maybe this is China or Russia. Fravor's encounter is from 2004 - I cannot understand how anyone can believe that China (which was a shell of its current self in 2004) or Russia (which has publicly embarrassed itself for two years in Ukraine) had this technology years before the first iPhone was released. The government has also had years (in the case of the Fravor counter, 20 years) to rule out the planet Mercury or whatever other mundane explanation people will trot out, and they can't do so. I don't buy for a minute that they just collectively shrugged their shoulders when these craft were tracked and flew circles around one of our Pacific carrier groups. The logical jump, in my view, is to assume our tech was wrong, our pilots were wrong, our cameras/FLIR caught the crafts at weird angles and thus malfunctioned, our radar operators were wrong, and our analysts weren't good enough to find an alternative explanation. Wrong multiple times on close, well-documented encounters over multiple decades. I think it's exactly what the pilots and the government say it is - metallic orbs that appear to be intelligently piloted doing shit that is blowing our minds. - If your view is that ICIG, after reviewing classified materials provided by Grusch, simply gave a green light to some of the most explosive accusations against the US government and DoD ever because it didn't look very hard, I'm again not sure what to say. The New York Times specifically reported that the ICIG investigated his claims and determined a number of them to be credible and reported so to members of Congress who received the classified briefing last week. And on Grusch, it is undisputed that he led the NGA's UAP task force and had special access program clearance. On top of that, he's a decorated veteran, testified under oath, and offered to provide any documentation requested by Congress to support his claims in a SCIF, which the DoD has still not provided Congress access to. The DoD, the very party who is being accused of withholding information, is the one blocking further inquiry into the matter. I'm not sure what relevance his government pay grade has to anything, or the tried and true, "maybe he's making money from this".
  16. Also point by point: - Disagree strongly. Brennan: "some of the phenomena we’re going to be seeing continues to be unexplained and might, in fact, be some type of phenomenon that is the result of something that we don’t yet understand and that could involve some type of activity that some might say constitutes a different form of life." Obama: "There is footage and records of objects in the skies that we don't know exactly what they are. We can't explain how they move, their trajectory. They did not have an easily explainable pattern. And so I think that people still take seriously, trying to investigate and figure out what that is." Reid: "I was told for decades that Lockheed had some of these retrieved materials,” the Democrat told the media outlet.“And I tried to get, as I recall, a classified approval by the Pentagon to have me go look at the stuff. They would not approve that. I don’t know what all the numbers were, what kind of classification it was, but they would not give that to me." Ratcliffe: "Look, the bottom line is, unidentified aerial phenomena — many, many cases we’re able to explain it away for reasons like visual disturbances, or weather phenomenon, or foreign adversaries and their technologies, or even our own experimental technologies with certain aircraft and vehicles, but what this report really underscores … is that there are a number of instances — and the specific number remains classified — but a number of instances where we’ve ruled all of that out. And there are technologies that we don’t have and frankly that we are not capable of defending against — based on those things that we’ve seen, multiple sensors, in other words, where not just people visually see it but where it’s picked up on radar, where it’s seen on satellites. And so, you know, it’s an issue of national security..." All of these are very serious people. People now accuse Reid of being a kook - why? Because he's saying stuff that makes you uncomfortable? He was one of the 10 most powerful politicians in the world for a decent portion of his career and had access to information none of us have. This is not a court of law where both sides are presenting evidence and endeavoring to give us a clear picture. This has been an area of immense government secrecy for years, and from the bits and pieces that are now getting out, I think it's clear that people in power believe there is significance to the phenomena. - OK - you chalk up the Pentagon UFO videos from 2017, 2021, and 2023 to gaps in our technology and erroneous identification by our pilots and crew. I do not. I trust our tech, pilots, and analytics, especially over multiple versions of the same category of sightings. - Disagree. I think it means we either: (i) know what it is and don't feel threatened by it or (ii) we don't think we can do a damn thing about it. - OK - what is this alternative meaning? I believe the report is still classified, but I'm curious what alternate interpretation would allow this finding. Grusch's whole claim is elements inside the military are concealing non-human intelligence from Congress. The IG reviewed the claim and the supporting documentation, found it urgent and credible, and the whistleblower complaint went through. And, in the recent debrief to members of Congress by the IG, the New York Times reported that the IG found a number of Grusch's claims credible, although not much information got out since the briefing was classified and the contents of the meeting can't be discussed (e.g., which claims, how were these claims investigated, etc.). - Sure, understand. But my perspective on this is that he was put in charge of investigating the phenomenon, has an incredible and distinguished track record in the intelligence community, had access to highly classified reports, and Congress doesn't seem to question him. In fact, many Congressmen are frustrated at what they feel is the DoD slow walking the disclosure process and generally stonewalling at every opportunity. He's not Bob Lazar who had endless issues with his resume and claims. He's a serious person who played an important role in our government and I'm inclined to believe him. He wants more transparency from the DoD on this issue. Everyones like, why can't he produce the goods? But these are highly classified materials and I believe he's trying to go about bringing whatever is buried in the Pentagon to light in a responsible way. Plus he probably doesn't want to get Chelsea Manning'd. - On @Viper's post, it sure doesn't look or act like balloons to me and I have no way of evaluating the credentials of some random guy on tick tock. He seems to have knowledge and thinks it is balloons, so you have to give some weight to that.
  17. Allow me to distill this down a bit into some simple questions: - Do you think that Barrack Obama, John Ratcliff, Harry Reid, John Brennan, etc. are lying or that you and Mick West's Youtube channel have access to superior evidence and analysis? It can only be one or the other. - Do you believe that our military (including the expert pilots and sensors both on the ships and the aircraft, which tracked these crafts independently) is incapable of ascertaining whether the crafts in the three videos authenticated by the Pentagon are tricks of the light or the planet Mercury? - Do you believe that, if we really thought these crafts were Chinese or Russian, we'd be behaving in such a laissez-faire manner? - Do you think that the Intelligence Community Inspector General is incompetent or corrupt? Grusch confidentially provided highly classified information to the Department of Defense Inspector General concerning the withholding of UAP-related information from Congress. The Inspector General made the determination that Grusch's complaint was credible and urgent based on the evidence presented, much of which remains highly classified and not in the public domain. So the choice is either: (i) the Inspector General of the intelligence community is incompetent or (ii) the Inspector General is corrupt. - What in Dave Grusch's past gives you concern that he is a fraud or otherwise untrustworthy? He was privy to some of the most sensitive secrets in our entire military.
  18. I have no idea if Hitler and Italy had a crashed UFO. But I do know that the Intelligence Community Inspector General, which, importantly, could view classified evidence that he put forward, found Grusch’s complaint to be “credible” and “urgent” in July 2022 and a summary was given to the Director of National Intelligence, Senate Select Committee on Intelligence and the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence. Grusch puts himself in criminal jeopardy if he is lying. There is also a line of senators and congressmen/women lining up to get classified briefings from Grusch, some of which rely on information so highly classified it can only be viewed in a SCIF. I am inclined to give a decorated intelligence officer that we put in charge of investigating this phenomenon and who has publicly put his skin on the line the benefit of the doubt.
  19. This is, of course, disingenuous cherry-picking. Sean Kilpatrick is the latest in a long line of US bureaucrats whose job it is to obfuscate the UFO issue. Harry Reid, one of the most successful senators in US history, is far from the only public figure to express belief in the topic. See, Barack Obama, who has said publicly that the phenomenon is "real", Jimmy Carter, who in 1973 said that he saw a UFO in the sky, U.S. Secretary of Defense Christopher Miller stated that "the objects in the videos are real" and that "we don't know what they are", Hillary Clinton, Senator Mark Rubio, John Ratcliff, John Brennan, James Woolsey former NASA Administrator James Webb, former Lockheed Martin CEO Marillyn Hewson...the list goes on and on. Next, one must ask why these very reputable individuals, whose opinions are often informed by our most sophisticated data collection and analysis, are saying this. Do they not have access to Mick West's YouTube content? The recent Schumer Amendment, which would have required the U.S. government to disclose any evidence of non-human entities, was stripped of that language. Why was there such a fight to remove that language? The "FLIR", "GoFast", and "Gimbal" videos, filmed by some of the best pilots in our military, have been publicly acknowledged by our military as unexplained, despite our best efforts. The pilots are exceptionally credible witnesses utilizing the best technology that we offer. There are five options in my view. First, it's our tech. Second, it's another country's tech. These are equally unlikely, in my opinion, as I don't think any nation could reach the propulsion development demonstrated in the Pentagon UFOs without intermittent developmental steps being made public. Third, in a startling number of instances, the most advanced military in the world can't identify bug splatter, balloons, or tricks of the eye, even when engaged with the UAPs directly. I think that is insane. Fourth, it's us trying to create a smokescreen around other advanced US tech we're developing, and fifth, it's non-human intelligence. The fourth and fifth are far and away the most compelling. It is crucial that we approach the UAP phenomenon with an open mind and a willingness to explore all possibilities, no matter how unconventional they may seem. By doing so, we can help to advance our understanding of the universe and our place in it. Frankly, it's people who cloak themselves in faux academia and ridicule the topic that prevents the general scientific body from feeling comfortable enough to engage with UAPs seriously.
  20. I find it impressive how quickly Bama fans have rationalized their new coach's firing a top-five overall quarterback recruit within a few days of his arriving on campus, all without actually seeing said recruit play in person.
  21. Confirmed. I know one of the whistleblowers personally and he's about as die hard Republican as they come.
  22. The rules are objectively nonsensical and a huge mess. Maybe now that it happened to Alabama the NCAA will be spurred into doing something about it.
  23. I think we're going to have to agree to disagree. I don't find any of that convincing, particularly in light of all the other videos being released from our military. Maybe the stars aligned and separate bunches of balloons from Party City Baghdad moved perfectly and unnaturally like that, but I don't buy it. I guess we've at least put bug splatter to rest. But I will say on Ingo Swann and Pat Price, the CIA concluded they were the genuine article. They definitely didn't hit 100% of the time, but they were far above anything that could be a statistical chance. One story from Annie Jacobsen's excellent book Phenomena that really stuck with me was, during a remote viewing experiment conducted by the CIA, Pat and Ingo were shown coordinates of an undisclosed location. Despite conducting their remote viewing separately, they both produced similar sketches, describing a high-tech compound featuring a large radar dish, a guardhouse, and roll-up doors in Jeeps. Price even claimed to have read documents on the site, including a cabinet labeled "Operation Pool," which contained green folders named "Q Ball," "14 Ball Eight," and "Ball and Rack Up." However, when the team presented their findings to the CIA analyst who provided the coordinates, they were told that the sketches were "nonsense" as the coordinates corresponded to the analyst's cabin in West Virginia. Further investigation revealed that the remote viewers had in fact seen a military installation, the Sugar Grove facility in West Virginia, which was situated just over the ridge from the analyst's cabin. The facility, which was used to capture information from Soviet satellites and serve as a listening post for various transmissions, was one of the most secret NSA installations in the country. There are numerous other stories in this vein. The CIA concluded that certain individuals possessed abilities that couldn't be adequately explained. The issue the government ran into was that it couldn't teach this ability to others or otherwise scale it. You either had it or you don't. So, it abandoned the project once it became public in the nineties. Assuming, of course, they did in fact abandon the project. They also claimed not to be looking at UFOs/UAPs and we know that's not true.
×
×
  • Create New...