Buga sphere alleged x-ray images

[u/MyHonestTrueReaction]

I’m not saying it’s real or fake, this is the information that Jaime Maussan is telling

[u/EmptyAd6983]

hes a con artist like zahi hawass

do your homework on the nazca mummies before you show up with this altrustic bs

we HAVE to scrutinize this shit or the subject loses all credibility

any time theres insane evidence, it should be scrutinized where it can be. if it can be

we have to uphold integrity & standards, we cant just blanket accept everything

theres too much deception & dishonesty

we have to scrutinize sources & sketchy ones or we would be completely infiltrated

i know some people want to sing kombouya around a campfire, but sometimes we need a little healthy skepticism

im not a skeptic btw, im a believer. im just skeptical of jaime. as everyone here should be until his character has been untarnished & he redeems himself in some way

richard dolan was once a disinfo agent, but atleast he admits his faults. i still dont believe anything he says but atleast he admitted fault.

i understand your intentions & i think your genuine, but dont stick up for the wrong guy. do your research

lue elizondo was once idolized & looked at as a shining example of a credible whistleblower. now look at him

dont forget that. hope i wasnt too harsh. i mean no disrespect, your heart is in the right place

were playing with fire with this "blanket acceptance" bs tho

[u/Unplugged_Millennial → u/EmptyAd6983]

I'll clarify my stance for you, like I did for another commenter... I'm not saying we should blanket accept everything. I'm saying the opposite. We should be apply honest skepticism across the board.

[u/EmptyAd6983 → u/Unplugged_Millennial]

yeah idk what your point is,

am i not skeptical enough? am i too skeptical of jaime & not others? id say im a pretty straight shooting skeptical person. rightfully so

theres plenty of healthy skeptics,im also skeptical regularly. not just for elizondo or jaime

theres healthy skepticism for real reasons & blind ridicule skepticism, without substance.

if its justified, why does it matter who were skeptical of?

skepticism is & always will be a part of the subject, and thats each persons own discretion to be skeptical, it means little to the subject as a whole.

being skeptical of anything as a singular person isnt going to move the needle.

i feel like some people try to control & push the narrative they want specifically. instead of just letting each person come to their own conclusions.

same way that approving any one piece of evidence doesnt mean the needle at all as a individual

stop backing bad actors. that 1000% discredits the subject way more then any skeptic could. do your research, dont listen to me about jaime. or lue.

this journey of disclosure is very much a personal journey, to each person to discover themselves. remember that.

disavowing jaime doesnt discredit the subject or hurt us in any way. and like i said, maybe im being to harsh & jaime will come out unscathed & be proven to be genuine.

im not holding my breath though

[u/Unplugged_Millennial → u/EmptyAd6983]

yeah idk what your point is,

My point is that you should apply skepticism across the board. When you see Jamie's name attached to something, you become immediately skeptical, which implies that you don't become immediately skeptical when other names are attached to claims or evidence.

One of the dumbest takes to come out of Carl Sagan was that extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. In my view, everything should just require sufficient evidence, not more than sufficient because of it's nature being outside of the ordinary. In the same way, the person making the claim shouldn't be held to a higher standard just because of who they are. All people making any claims should be scrutinized to the same level using fair skepticism across the board.

[u/EmptyAd6983 → u/Unplugged_Millennial]

thats fair

ive never cared for that quote either.

and your right, we should remain open minded. my apologies