Turnip: you're the one that's toxic, likes to go on Goodreads spread your little hate. Come on here, hate me standing against bullies. That's makes you toxic, supporting the toxic. I'm standing against the toxic, that's makes me awesome and good. Not like you, you're toxic. And I'm like the antidote to toxic that's why you think I'm toxic cuz you are toxic. Btw I didn't go through your history past two pages even then it wasn't worth reading it's just what I sense about you. You can talk big but I know my words are effective and I know they hit home and now you got to live with that. Karma for your comments. Maybe you'll learn those consequences and act better in future. Thanks for your cooperation and for joining in here, you really helped me do one thing I'm meant to do: stand against the toxic, like you.
tutivillusrex: king of the nothing. You're so good, humble and sane. Not. It's always the crazy bad and arrogant ones that launch the insults first at others.
Weekeerney999: oh no I just stand against the toxic. That makes me awesome, and good. And if you don't like that that makes you toxic.
Psychoenergetics experiments were done that, among other things, provided successful access to information through mental means only by a viewer in a submersible 140 m and more below the surface of the ocean, and also viewers were able to see eclipses of the moons of Jupiter and that information was verified 80 minutes later by astronomers. Jupiter is 80 light minutes away. That indicates that it operates faster than the speed of light. there's other known phenomena that do, information exchanged via entanglement is thought to operate faster than the speed of light. As far as could be determined these consciousness abilities could not be shielded and were not electromagnetic in nature.
You haven't offended me. You've offended yourself, and the decency of the people you spoke to on here. You limited yourself, and disrespected them and I saw you doing that and pushed back. And you complain and now try to prove you were mostly OK all whole time. You're offended here, isn't it?
So...basic speech and physical facts, huß? So you read it as I'm offended by these things hmm, that's interesting. I suppose reading it that way you can more easily dismiss or try to minimize to yourself what I'm saying, tell yourself it's just emotional or irrational and something you don't need to learn form.
Do you know how I feel about it? If you really know then tell me? You don't know. You're just pretending, to suit yourself.
The difference with the other posted is they are not imposing limits, but you are. You might think it's symmetric, but it's not. It's more likely that things are more abundant than you know, than that you have already discovered everything that's possible, so you should be more respectful and modal when expressing restrictions.
You say adding qualifiers like "I think" and "I believe" is noise, but it's about respect and empathy and the tactic acknowledgment that you don't have all the answers, other people's ideas are valid, and what you are saying comes with that openness and curiosity to learning more. It makes sense that you read those things as "noise" given the low quality of your responses and low respect and empathy with other's opinions here: ie your totally disrespectful language pretending people who don't share your narrow view are "crazy"
It's good you reveal your thinking about it. I think you are missing the point that you're not just writing down a verbatim statement of the facts like a dry mathematical treatise or policy document you are communicating with other human beings. Trying to come off like that, will do you much better, and I think you have much to learn.
You'll definitely be able to do that if you make the effort it. That's why I spent so much time on you.
I believe you can, please do the effort and have a good one.
- thanks for proving my point. you doubt granny because you know her to already be of inconstant and diseased mind, and you are involved in and know the facts of what actually happened, because you were there. so you're in a reasonable position of authroity to dispute her suggested history as well as label it as a delusion. but wrong that you equate this with your unfair, unreasonable, arrogant and abusive criticism of people with alien/UFO stories as deluded, or delusions. equivalently, you place yourself above them, pretend with zero justification you knew better, were somehow ahold of the facts of the situation or were there, you weren't, and have zero klnowledge of their mental state but blanket critcize humiliate and dismiss them. yet insiste you were still right to do so, because you care for you granny? sickening to abuse the love for you granny to try to pass of your abusive behaviour on others as okay. also sickening that this analogy is one where the power imbalance is great, you are in a carer position for granny, you have power in relation to her, and you are deciding things for her. sickening and revealing how you think about these people whose stories you trashed.
it's not disrespectful to true UFO experiencers, or abductees, nor to true victims of drug abuse, sexual assault and rape to comapare their claims to UFO and alien witnesses, and to each other, because it's about evidence and the truth. if we discount the standard of evidence we undermine justice which is the very thing that can strive to protect and remedy real victims. it is disrespectful to undermine the standards of truth and evidence underlying criminal culpability and conviction by applying a biased standard to some and not others because you're saying we'll believe you because of our pre-existing beliefs not because of the facts of the case and your story, applying this discount to the standards required is totally disrespectful to true victims of crime because it lowers the percieved quality of evidence and allows the true claims to be swamped by false ones. It's false to believe something occurs because in general you believe it to occur therefore in a specific instance it is more likely. Each case must be considered on its evidence and merits. Even tho your opinins have no legal impact, they risk damaging the public narrative and discourse around these topics by degrading the reliability of real witnesses by demonstrating a bias toward believing claimaints that align with particular beliefs versus otherwise. This essentially reduces rape (and sexual abuse, etc) to a culturally relative, temporally relative, belief relative consturct, rather than the rock solid legal position it can be to solidly prosecutre and punish true perpetrators, and bring justice to real victims. You don't seem to see that degrading the standards of evidence by giving preferential treatment to those things you believe, rather than taking cases on their merits and comparing them equally regardless of the topic of the story or its current status in the cultural milieu is the best way to bring justice to victims and their families, everyone involved, and society as a whole. That's the empathic and compassionate position to take: to hear everyone's story, but adjudicate each claim in a balanced and unbiased way free of discrimination (based on belief) or prejudgement. That's the essence of judgement, and under the guise of you thinking you're being just you're just undermining it.
looking at that honestly is the ebst way to respect true victims of sexual abuse, parental abuse, accusations of drug abuse (vs planted evidence). again, you're so deluded or deliberately deceptive in that you think you're being good, but were actually being abusive, and protest when people stand up against that, and also think that trashing that value of witness testimony, while holding up a biased standard because you have reason to think that in "general" these things happen, therefore specifically it happened -- that's not the weight of testimony at all! that's undermining everything. you have reason to think that in "general" alien things happen because of the preponderance of evidence, but you're biased, revealing a lack of even handedness that's actually harmful and disrespectful to true victims and to justice. casting doubt on stories because people look at it preferentially or in a biased way. that's not the weight of testimony at all, that undermines it. you casually disregard the pain and fear of people sharing UFO stories while ignoring the obvious humiliation and abuse and dismissals and disbelief they are subjected to, just as you wanted to subject them to, yet you stand there and pretend to be for victims of sexual abuse. so disrespectful, and disingenuous! you may have pesonal experience but that doesn't mean you stand for victims and justice when you undermine people like this in these biased and unfair ways.
"This thread" is still here with your totally disrespectful "This paper lends absolutely no credence to the various crackpots and deluded people who claim they have met aliens."
And you think this is respectful "Your consciousness is a physical process happening in your body (especially your brain). It can no more travel the universe than your digestion can manifest in another galaxy" Again your speaking for someone else, "your consciousness", "can no more", as if you are setting the limits.
If you'd said, "I think," or even better, "my consciousness..." or even better, "I've never experienced..." If you'd showed curiosity...or asked to learn more. That is respectful.
But you assert these things as if they're irrefutable truths, and talk of science. But you haven't considered the science of consciousness and remote viewing. Search the Central Intel Agency archives for this or join an online community and try for yourself if you're going to speak with such absolutism about things which you do not know anything at all. Educate yourself first, otherwise you'll get a part of the picture but think you know everything to deny all other parts, like this attitude: https://www.eschoolnews.com/2015/06/18/scandinavian-schools-...
it's great for me that you've contributed your energy now to this, even though your words are not very nice, and incorrect. I suppose you saw me standing up to a bully sand you just couldn't stand that, preferring bullying to be met with silence and submission. Or maybe it was you got triggered about the Goodreads criticism. Maybe both. By the way the only thing toxic here is you. Pretending people should be silent in the face of bullies. And the only thing bad faith is your biased and self-serving black as white rewriting of my comment history. It seems you've proved my point as you're someone rushing to the defense of toxic behavior on Goodreads and you're also someone who tries to attack people and pretend they're toxic because you disagree with them. Maybe you experience disagreement and standing up against bullies as toxic. Makes sense for a bully like yourself. Sounds exactly like what I was describing. Tho your own hn main account seems squeaky clean beside the above, I bet if we went looking we'd see evidence of abusive and toxic behavior, maybe in your small town community the way you bitch and gossip about people or maybe you've got an account on Goodreads.
It must be hard to scrape out a living especially with all that talent I mean I see where you're coming from. But it's quite sad isn't it to be embittered and feel you should have got so much more ... by now. I get why you'd feel you need to seek these little consolations I just hope that in future you could seek them without trying to harm or abuse others.
well you must be bully. you frame in a completely backwards self-serving way my response to bullying bheaviour. showing you just want people to get abused and be silent, if it's you doing the abuse. nice work, bully. a biased self-serving reading, from someone triggerd by a goodreads critique, married with non-sequitur abusie langauge? girl, oh girl, how surprising.
further triggered by good reads, thanks proving my point. clearly you brook no dissent to your little despotic opinions, now that i disagree with you you pretend i'm toxic. the only bad faith here is that biased reading of yours, and the only toxicity is from you, everything you touch must be like that, no matter how talented you are, because of your willingness to bully and attack and abuse others simply because they disagree with you, while pretending you're not doing so. I forgive you.
Wow, you're trying to get out of what you did. You didn't insult the people, you insulted the claims? No you did not.
"as they are all either delusions, lying, false memories etc."...
"the various crackpots and deluded people who claim"...
You don't think it's an insult to a person to call their experience, sincerely recounted, a delusion, a lie, a false memory? Of course it is. Then as you admit, honorably, you do call them crackpots and deluded. Fair enough, but just because some people have been proven liars (or in the rape case, fake accusers), does not mean we should doubt other people coming forward, does it? and certainly does mean we should blanket call those people crackpots, or deluded or pretend they're lying, does it? "Finally, I didn't insult you, so I don't expect to be insulted in return." You don't expect to be insulted in return for accusing others in this abusive way of being without credibility? Exactly what I said, You expect silence in response to your abuse. Reform yourself. I saw you pushing down on people, and I pushed back. You can't take it? Don't dish it out. That's the way it is, focker.
You may firmly believe it, but then you're blind (or empathically missing the point) that accusing someone of having a mental illness, or hallucinating something you haven't experienced and have no frame for, is an insult, and more than that. You're saying you know their mind better than they do. You're saying their experience, of their life, is trumped by your opinion. And is less valuable than your "in the stands" commentary on it. You are not involved at all in what they experienced, yet you denigrate it, and claim you're not insulting them. Abusive insulting practice hiding behind veneer of being legitimate.
All I'm saying about physics is we don't know it all yet, and can't assume we do. Science admits as much, but few on the inside are courageous enough to take that to its logical conclusion.
Comparing evidence for rape, abuse, etc, to evidence for aliens is not disgusting, and you're certainly okay with doing that because you're okay to claim that all these millions of people with their stories and experiences must have simply imagined it, implanted a false memory, lied, etc. It's not about reporting being one-sided, it's about reporting consisting solely of witness testimony, often just of one person. That's true both for the alien case, and the rape and abuse case. You don't quite seem to see what you're doing when you want to doubt so many people for telling their story. It wasn't a long time in the past when people were laughed at or dismissed for telling their stories of rape and abuse, just like you'd have people do with those with stories of aliens today.
It seems you have not been acquainted with enough stories, I suggest you do some research and read up on people discussing abduction stories, and so on. Enter it as a skeptic, full of confidence you'll be able to explain it away. Talk to people involved. Give them a chance to be heard. Empathize with them. Instead of pretending you're "disgusted" by the very same comparative dismissal you yourself are hawking, while somehow laying claim to a moral grounding in this when you've been behaving anything but about it.
It's already abusive if you were an innocent here, but as it stands it's the commensurate response to your abuse, and that's the point, you're getting back what you gave, and it's justified because because you're the primary aggressor. You started it but try to disown your responsibility. You're still blind to the that.
If you'd stated your opinion in this respectful way differential to the opinions of others initially then there would have been no issue. It was your arrogance and abusive language that led to your downfall here.
even if you're unable to publicly admit your responsibility here, nor acknowledge your mistake and admit your guilt, hopefully you learn that now for yourself. That would be good.
Anything to do with goodreads becomes toxic. I think that's because the types of people who read and opine about books to the extent they feel compelled to blog/review on gr, are also likely to be the types of people who brook no dissent to their opinions, neither of authors, books nor the things they make them mean. They're independent, self-trusting, artistic thinkers (in the manner of Nietzsche), and the act of engaging in bookreading, where they are in their own closeted little world, alone with the author's mind, is the pinnacle of their innate joy, but the internet of everyman wasn't built for them, so they become little despots when faced with a sea of divergence.
The comment above is an example of a hanger-on to this dynamic: not quite independent enough to be a despot in their own right, but an enabler of the despotism of these little opiners, who the userbase of goodreads epitomizes so well, leading to the toxicity oozing from the seams of goodreads observable in abundance.
Stop pretending. You have NO idea what consciousness is or isn't. You speak these words as if they are truth, "it can no more", but you are not god. You don't decide. You're trying to limit the reality of existence to your own limited and biased experience of it. Fine, OK. Do that if it's too scary for you to look outside that shell, but don't you dare - EVER - try to call people crackpots liars and deluded because they think different and have experienced different to you. See your own bias, and exist within that if that's what you choose. But don't persecute others or impose your priors as if they're truth. You think it's fair game to attack people whose stories you don't believe as liars, crackpots and deluded? Well I'm here to push back on you. Do you get it? I'm here to tell you it's not fair game, focker. Do you get that?
Hahahaaha. This so hilarious. I just saw your comment now. You are so blind to what you're doing. You really think you're going to get away with your abusive language and expect silence in return? Who's been enabling you? I used that language because it's the commensurate response to you using that language to describe people you disagree with or don't believe, and the right response to your claim that believers are wrong and you know better. So you can't take it, simiones? Don't dish it out. Please refrain from having a double standard.
Define "verifiable results"? There's plenty of stories of corroboration between people saying they had some experience that can't be explained and that you want to pretend to yourself has to be untrue, and something more verifiable happening. Like they got cured, or they went missing, or they got an implant, or a mark was left on their body, or the ground was irradiated, and so on.
Many of these have led to such "verifiable" results, it's only that you're too resistant to see that. Have you proved all these stories to be false? Have you debunked everyone's experiences, stories and beliefs in things you can't explain? No. you. have. not. So I think it's time you entirely stop pretending that because you don't want to see it, it isn't happening. It's very very disrespectful to witnesses of this.
Do we have any "verifiable" data on drug abuse? Sexual assault? Parental abuse of children? Much of that data is self-reported. But it's "hard data" from the point of view of public health / legal system. It's only because you're unwilling to concede that there's anything outside your understanding, so you'd rather pretend these people are lying, crackpot, deluded, than having experienced something that you, in your arrogance, don't understand and therefore refuse to accept is real.
You're trapped by your own biases and priors, ignoring evidence and seeking confirmation bias. Ok, fine, you do that. But please don't ever - EVER - call people crackpot nutcases deluded liars and think you can get away with having people be silent in the face of that, and not calling you the same.
Pretty well understood physical limits - who says they're limits? You? What are you, God? You don't know for sure. Stop pretending if humans can't understand it it can't be done. How arrogant and stupid that is! But you think you can persist in this, call people you disagree with "crackpot deluded liars" and then you want everyone to silently accept your abusive language and not push back, as you complain when the very same language is used against you. Hahahaha! This totally shows not only your intellectual bias, but your personal bias and arrogance. Please reform yourself.
Well, in the case of that paper it's true. It's using deductive reasoning, but my statement is more easily read about inductive reasoning. However, you could equally read it, "other theories that provide predictions that contradict this reasoning". My point was be constructive and creative, not just dismissive and destructive. Have something to offer, an alternative way of viewing the world, rather than just saying "this way doesn't work".
But reading it the way you did, I disagree. We do have plenty of data on aliens. Do we have any "data" on drug-use? On parental abuse? On sexual assault? Most of these "data" are self-reported by people involved. But that's "hard data" from a public health / legal point of view.
Equivalently, we have plenty of witness data about actual non-human beings in craft. And we have plenty of data about craft that seem to exceed anything we are capable of. So we have "we do have plenty of data" not "we don't have any data at all" is what you meant to say, if you were reading the world consistently, honestly and openly.
Because you don't know if they're "Crackpots and deluded people"...that's the claim without credence. So unfair to all those witnesses. You can't judge them, you don't have any idea. It's your personal opinion that you parade as truth, but pretend others are wrong. But not just wrong, crazy.
But that claim, yours, is crazy. Can you prove all those people wrong? Can you prove they haven't? Nooope.
"is essentially impossible all stem" -- so because you have a belief that you understand everything that's possible (An arrogant humancentric "if we haven't figured it out" it can't be done), you're going to pretend everyone that has a personal experience that contravenes your prejudgment is crazy. That's the crazy thing dudettee ... you don't see that tho right.
It's also a narrow minded viewing. You could say they worked out how to jump from far away to get here, in ways we don't understand. Possible. You could also take the more-feasible-to-you view that they are already in the solar system and can come take a look at us when they want. Also possible. But acknowledging such possibilities would rob you of the posture of saying anyone who has an experience you don't want to even try explain is crackpot and delude. You sound like the lazy and deluded crackpot nutcase for saying that anyone who has something you can't explain is crazy. I suppose pretending this must have high payoff for you. You can't just impose your priors on others and think they're true. I guess you don't yet see that.
Hahaha. you're so deluded that you've applied your own priors and beliefs there that everybody who has this experience must be lying. You've recklessly imposed your prior that all of this witness data has to be false because you simply personally disagree with it. But you don't think that's crazy at all then you do that. You are right now blind to that distortion. But you need to wake up to how crazy that is. this paper if you read it with an open mind is exactly the type of reasoning that you need to plug yourself into
Theoretical explanation for observed reactions: Lemma 1: alien topic is like religion, not a great amount of data, but very high stakes. Lemma 2: There's a lot of intellectual "soccer mums" on HN eager to find an outlet for their unrealized (?) intellectual prowess. Corollary: Alien topic seems like fair game, because low risk associated to bring wrong, and hard to disprove with facts or experts. Theory: this topic manifold provides attractive attachment site for brains looking to engage in intellectual proving games and leads to lots of low signal comments intended to make others wrong to achieve a sense of being right. It will take HN some time to adopt the correct posture to discuss leading edge questions in areas with lots of ambiguity. QED.
But this theory shouldn't be controversial at all: A random sample taken from any distribution is more than likely to be representative of that distribution. It's a basic idea but I like how he's illustrated it here with lots of examples and connected it to the alien notion. Meaning it leads to a good insight. Namely why most described encounters of aliens detail beings that are a lot like ourselves. The so-called five star pattern: a head, two arms, two legs. And hands with fingers.
In fact the ideas advanced in this essay are so fundamental they're like informational entropy or enthalpy/thermodynamics in that they are basic but insightful and sometimes counterintuitive principles that advanced reasoners can use to figure about the world. I wish more people knew of them.
I'm so blown away by this essay. in a limit sense I think this type of reasoning represents the best that you can possibly do starting from a position of ignorance. And as essay says that position is the safest one to start at. Sure you can apply a bunch of priors and constraints to limit the variations of different populations to what you think is right but really in this topic those things are just distortions. so the conclusions arrived at in this paper I think are in the limit sense the best that you can possibly do from the intellectually honest position of almost totally ignorance about this.
it's telling that so many people want to instinctively reject this and instead blindly impose their own priors while being blissfully unaware that's exactly what they're doing, resisting the general purpose conclusions of this essay and trying to pass off their own beliefs as truth.
And what you're doing is denying looking at stuff because it doesn't confirm your biases. There's a bunch of weird things in solar system and mountains of evidence for weirdness on Earth that you'd have question marks over if you were being honest about this.
You may say you want there to be aliens here but you're not acting like you're willing to engage with the evidence about this. You're viewing it through a preconceived idea.
Right there's no smoke gun evidence for solar residence but there's no evidence for them not being there. Circumstantial evidence for proximity to help explain the evidence that they're here on Earth.
"God of the gaps" is a biased and weird way to describe something you do every day. You have a hypothesis, you know there's something wrong, somewhere, but you don't know where it is. So you go looking. Is it in your fridge? No. The closet? No. Under the rug? Backseat of the car? No. Where could it be? Maybe you just imagined the thing. But you were so sure. But there's no evidence....But there is. You sensed something was wrong. You saw the thing yesterday, and now can't see it.
Because you have some Wikipedia page and fancy scary name for some thing that's a normal part of human thinking (and science -- where are all those particles? Let's search in other energy levels and collisions ...) then any thing that looks like that is "little green men" and "bunk"? Come on. By that logic the housemate's lost package, the smell in the living room and the bug you hunt down in your program is bunk.
You're sure there's a bug (might it not just be how you're measuring it?), and you employ a process of elimination. That you employ that process does not make you crazy...but it seems you would look yourself in the mirror and think, "I'm crazy for doing god in the gaps thinking about this bug." Or is that just what you say about others but not yourself?
I just think it's not the type of erroneous thinking you think. It's actually logical. We have a big search space, we have some signals, now go find where they originate. It's a big space, and you don't have access to any of it. If you want to sit there and say, there's nothing there. That's completely illogical. It's not even "unlikely" that there's nothing there. You have signals on Earth, and by your logic of the impossibility of intergalactic travel, the signals are more likely to originate locally.
So... just because you didn't find it on Venus or Mars (so far, but have you been there?), doesn't mean they're not here. There's a lot of places we haven't looked, and they could be there.
You may deny it but that doesn't change one iota of the reality. It's just your belief about it. "God of the gaps" cuts both ways. Every time you see a gap, "You can say, see this is more support to what I'm saying." I can say that. SO can you. It doesn't disprove what you think is unlikely. It doesn't make it more likely. People used to say Marilyn Monroe made a man more of what he was. Cocky men became more cocky in her presence. Timid men more timid. Maybe the gaps show us what we really think, not what's really there? It doesn't show you anything. It's not "god of the gaps" it's unknown in the gaps.
Only thing it shows is we're both willing to fill in the gaps with certainty. You're certain they're not in the solar system. Another idea that supports the notion that aliens visiting Earth is more likely than without them being in the solar system? You deny it. To support your pre-existing belief? Of course not. Simple because the evidence guides you toward that in your unbiased appraisal of it. Come on... You're blind to the interpretive nature of your conclusions, and still hide that in the perception that the "sensible majority consensus" aligns with your view. But that very conservatism makes you an unreliable speaker about these mysteries. What value can you add if you're not willing to engage with the gaps?
"Ah, it's a big black unknown. Leave it alone. Nothing to see there."
You're saying it's all bunk, is the bunk. Because you don't know. Have you searched every crevice of the solar system to prove there's no life there? That someone had a story that was a wrong interpretation of the data, but if true supports a 'they're here' hypothesis, does not disprove that hypothesis if their interpretation is wrong.
I'd say we don't have nearly enough data to rule it out. 'Much less likely' compared to a strawman? Still can be very likely.
You've kept the little green men out of your garden because it doesn't make sense to you that they're here. Or you felt in the past it's just too much fun for you to argue with those that believe. And you think the time is still here when denying evidence of this stuff still looks rational. But that time has passed. It now looks crazy to say the evidence leads you to stretch denials into invoking a certainty of impossibility in the face of ambiguity and lots of signal.
That part of you wants to believe in alien visitors, seems to be independent of the priors you have (about the impossibility of this) that filters your interpretation of the data. I think that's normal. People's ideas do not need to be self-consistent and can "contain multitudes".
To extend the pirate rapists example from my other answer. Maybe you'd never known a pirate that had raped a person, but I think if you knew someone who told you that story, and you'd heard other people had similar experiences, you'd certainly believe them.
Or maybe not pirates but Trump supporters. Or whatever group fit your priors for likely/payoff for you to do this. So the "aliens are not a smart possibility" here is just an interpretation skewed by the way you want to read signal in the evidence.
It's equal that we can look at the same things and come to different conclusions. That's diversity of opinion and experience. But maybe you haven't even looked at the same things. Certainly we look at them in different ways.
I believe aliens are here. But I'm not saying this Navy evidence points to that definitely. I'm saying it doesn't rule it out. It's smart to keep open to it. I'd say the preponderance of witness evidence over decades without a doubt points to that they are here. Does this evidence prove it? No to me. But I know it. It's what I believe based on my own knowledge and experiences.
You have a different belief is normal. I don't think either of us can claim to be "right" on this topic re evidence (tho about the solar system, what do you think about those weird obelisks? structures on the moon? NASA's history of censoring space photos? Lights on Ceres, on Phobos, on Luna?)
In one view, the lack of solid widely accepted data is why there's so much "meat" to be argued about, but actually I don't think that's the meat, that's just reaching the ground consensus that people will reach different conclusions and I think as long as they do so with an open mind to the evidence that's valid.
I do think you have to admit that what you say about it comes not from evidence, but from your interpretation of it. It's not proven either way, it's just your belief that it's so. And that's all that matters so far right.
or Telegram
Or Signal
And have nobody spy on you
"Trust me, I'm Italian."