Main menu
You are here
| Size | Seeds | Peers | Completed |
|---|---|---|---|
| 3.29 GiB | 0 | 0 | 410 |
From controversial and visionary director Roger R. Richards, “The Observers” is an in-depth exploration, into the at times horrifying, yet equally fascinating abyss of modern day UFOlogy. Richards brings together top UFO researchers, whistleblowers, witnesses, abductee's and experiencers, in his 5th feature documentary dedicated to unpacking the complex nature of our collective reality. Filmed during the release of the much anticipated 2021 UAP (unidentifiable arial phenomenon) report, The Observers is a comprehensive and timely conversation that plumbs the depths of the UFO phenomenon and asks the hard questions at the heart of this global enigma. The Observers showcases an impressive cast of credible voices of influence that includes Luis Elizondo, Linda M. Howe, Richard Dolan, William Henry, Whitley Strieber, Jesse Ventura, John Greenewald Jr. and Jimmy Church of Fade to Black Radio. If you have ever questioned the possibility of time travel, extraterrestrial life, advanced top-secret technology, or alternate dimensions, “The Observers” is a nonstop, must see, mind bender. Awaken to the possibilities of an unimaginable reality, where UFO Disclosure triggers a quantum leap in human evolution.
https://www.themoviedb.org/movie/899617-the-observers
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zZNsQaGrB7M
https://www.reddit.com/user/ConspiracyTorrents/posts/
Video
ID : 1
Format : AVC
Format/Info : Advanced Video Codec
Format profile : Main@L4
Format settings : CABAC / 1 Ref Frames
Format settings, CABAC : Yes
Format settings, Reference frames : 1 frame
Codec ID : V_MPEG4/ISO/AVC
Duration : 1 h 30 min
Bit rate mode : Variable
Maximum bit rate : 6 000 kb/s
Width : 1 920 pixels
Height : 1 080 pixels
Display aspect ratio : 16:9
Frame rate mode : Constant
Frame rate : 23.976 (24000/1001) FPS
Original frame rate : 29.970 (30000/1001) FPS
Color space : YUV
Chroma subsampling : 4:2:0
Bit depth : 8 bits
Scan type : Progressive
Default : Yes
Forced : NoAudio
ID : 2
Format : AAC LC
Format/Info : Advanced Audio Codec Low Complexity
Codec ID : A_AAC-2
Duration : 1 h 30 min
Channel(s) : 2 channels
Channel layout : L R
Sampling rate : 48.0 kHz
Frame rate : 46.875 FPS (1024 SPF)
Compression mode : Lossy
Title : English
Language : English
Default : Yes
Forced : No
- Log in to post comments
Comments
Thanks for sharing!
Thanks for sharing!
PASSWORDS...
Stop This Damn Constant Password Change Policy - DMN... I hate it with my utilities, and I hate it here.... No other sites do it - just this one!
Password
It doesn't happen that often, from what I remember. Like every few months maybe. Thankfully I just alternate between a few memorized passwords and Google Chrome remembers the rest for me, so it doesn't really bother me that much...
TheCorsair00 wrote:
Don't even bother trying to mollify the infant...he'll go back to his cradle soon enough and not saying anything for another 7 months.
u7Wa6Dyvrp73Y}fB
They definitely seem to have an ungracious attitude, as I have seen them complain elsewhere on the site recently as well.
By the way, for those interested in this torrent, I just finished watching it and I thought it was quite good and definitely worthwhile as it covers a lot of ground on the subject of UFOs and what has been going on with the topic recently.
The password change policy was removed months ago.
What is the date of the email you received?
non sense has replaced common sense
ya............info tainment at its worst. jesse ventura rises again. guess he was running out of money in mexico......... i am amazed at how many people still buy this nonsense. more GAIA new age sillyness. in the 70s as a kid UFOs were considered stupid....a childs folly. now thanks to teLIEvision and ancient aliens almost everyone believes in santa claus again. there is no life forms coming bazillions of miles to probe your ass or crash their super advanced stuff on our spinning waterball in an infinite nothingness of a Godless "soul lure" system. i wonder when "question everything" happens an repeat everything is a thing of the past....space as described is fake as fu#k.......peace
dudeface wrote:
That is a blatant lie and you know it. Billions of adults believed UFOs exist. If anything, more believed in them then than now.
in an infinite nothingness of a Godless "soul lure" system.
That sure sounds boring, doesn't it?
TheCorsair00 wrote:
just curious: what is a soul lure system?
Soul lure
I forgot to add that comment as a reply to dudeface's post. It was something he said. Although it is kind of contradictory, because if everything is just a Godless nothingness, then there is no "soul" to "lure" haha. But you'd have to ask him, he might have a theory....
TheCorsair00 wrote:
ah, okay, I see it now in his original garbled post. it is supposed to be a play on words ("solar"). but it is a bad one, and does not help his argument. [better: "soul lore"]
seems you miss read my post.
seems you miss read my post. i am not the one whos repeating all the crap about the solar system (soul lure). the inference is that the helio centric model is a lure to steal your soul from the creator...........and there is one. Every single thing that has come from NASA (luciferian freemasonic nazi war criminals.) is a straight up lie/deceit. creation is much more interesting than most can conceive now that their brains are filled with said masonic nonsense. they deceive while they full know what and where we live. you CANNOT be a mason without believing in some sort of "God" yet their model that was created by the jesuits and taught since the masonic take over of schools in the early 1900s. schools still taught geo centrism until 1920s........thats a fact if you actually research it. anyways to each their own but i am no longer a repeater. and this "space" thing is as believable as santa claus.........peace
you are saying 2 things, as
you are saying 2 things, as far as I can tell:
1. ideas about aliens coming to earth to "probe my ass" is an illusion, and
2. the heliocentric model is a lure to steal my soul
Regarding #1, it is unclear how aliens have anything to do with either heliocentrism or souls.
Regarding #2, it is unclear why or how a heliocentric model will steal my soul.
You seem to be sharing conclusions to your thought processes, but not how you arrived at those conclusions.
Regarding #2 .............
Regarding #2 ..............the helio centric model infers a big bang......which is nonsense..........which infers there is no creator. athiesm is a problem. its the same as satanic beliefs (which has nothing to do with worshiping the devil) there is consequence to every action a freewill soul makes. believing there is no creator will eventually lead to the loss of said soul. i actually have had mid 20s/30s people say they dont have a soul.....thats a shocking statement. what then powers a being??
Regarding #1 ...........i guess "aliens" are possible even on the geocentric model. but for most aliens infer vast distances and space ships....that science FICTION not fact. if there is "aliens" they are coming here from much closer lands AKA hidden land? another continent we are not privy to..........space as described is not real..........peace
Heliocentrism is unrelated to
Heliocentrism is unrelated to the Big Bang and does not rely on it at all.
The existence of aliens is unrelated to the organization of the Solar system.
The Big Bang is (attempted) to infer atheism but is in fact also unrelated. God is non-material and is unrelated to the beginning, middle, or end process of the material world.
There is no way to hide a continent from warring super powers with satellites. If one hides it the other one will blow the lid on it.
Space (pretty much as described) is real and observable by you or anyone else through a telescope. They are even sending tourists now...
Also just FYI this movie would be interesting for you:
https://www.1337x.to/torrent/4609735/The-Principle-2014-720p-WEB-x264/
ya...............nothing you
ya...............nothing you said is provable or repeatable. you are simply repeating.........tourists in space?? thats funny and absolutely not true. going up high and free falling back to earth is NOT space. its called a zero g plane. what i see in a telescope is lights and wandering lights not round spinning cartoon balls like NASA shows you. satellites do not exist as described (sateloons have been used since the 50s) ever heard the story of the iron republic?? i bet not........... and if you think the governments of the world actually compete against each other you sir are delusional. they are and always have been working together to enslave your ass (COVID1984 which is a hoax shut down the whole world at once) by the way i have seen the principal (more info tainment) and you seemed to miss the fact that their supposed background radiation showed everything going away from earth.....meaning it is the center of everything. but they skip over that statement
as for the big bang and aliens they are definately related to the big bang. they teach this crap in catholic schools and religion is a watered down mis mash of scientism and religion. the bible states how the earth was formed long before some freemasonic ass came up with scientism of "space". but you keep on believing those luciferian freemasonic nazis if that gives you comfort as they slowly leech your soul away.........i choose to believe other things..............peace out
dudeface wrote:
When I look at the moon through a telescope, it looks like a lot more than a "light". Same with Saturn, Jupiter, Venus, and Mars.
The sun can easily be seen using a filter on a normal telescope. Sunspots clearly show the sun is a rotating sphere.
The rings of Saturn can be seen with a store bought telescope costing a few hundred dollars. When you see them for the first time with your own eyes, it's an experience you don't easily forget.
the moon is not a star. it
the moon is not a star. it was not mentioned in the previous conversation. its not 240,000 miles away. if you believe you can see that far with just a little tube with some glass things you are programmed pretty good. a telescope is the exact same as a microscope. it gathers light and has very little magnification. only the eye peice really does any magnifying. so you believe when you look through a microscope your looking further INTO the slide..........thats retarded. your zooming in on an item that is right there. close to the lens of the microscope. not looking vast distances away from you. a telescope is the EXACT same............telescopes only difference is its tube gathers light and the eyepeice gives you no more than 50x magnifacation. so you are not looking further away into the past which is goofy as hell..........your zooming in on close local things. its really that simple. but i am sure some will argue differently just to keep the ego happy.
i agree you can see ROUND not spherical things through a telescope.....that does not make them giant rocky/gassy planets bazillions of miles away. to believe so is straight up programming. as for sun spots .........have YOU actaully filmed them? and how does a moving spot mean a thing is spinning? assumptions.
want some real insight from a guy thats not paid by the man to push the current nonsense model...........try youtube and look up Crrow777 oldest works. real stuff there not NASA luciferian masonic nazi lies ......peace
https://www.youtube.com/c/Crrow777/videos?view=0&sort=da&flow=grid
dudeface wrote:
Thanks for the revelation. Why are you pretending you're conversing with a 3 year old? Do you believe your condescending attitude helps your case?
So what? Why do you think you get to define the scope within which I must write?
You know damn well I was responding to your statement which I quoted:
So cut the crap and converse like an adult instead of a snarky little teenager if you want to be taken seriously. Or are you not interested in being taken seriously, just trolling?
How far away is the moon?
They're called lenses. Lenses bend light. This is grade 3 stuff. Stop pretending you don't know how lenses work. Nobody is that stupid. You're obviously a troll.
Stop pretending you don't know how lenses work. Nobody is that stupid. You're obviously a troll.
Stop telling me what I believe. Stop pretending your inability to understand grade school concepts means that I'm retarded. Explain to me why you cannot comprehend the difference between a telescope and a microscope. Nobody is that stupid. You're obviously a troll.
There is no way that you can be that stupid. You're a troll.
Stop pretending that people that call you out for spreading bullshit do it for ego. I'm doing it because I don't appreciate trolls who get their jollies by bullying the weak.
Stop pretending that the moon and planets are "bazillions of miles away".
You peddle provable lies while discrediting provable truth, and call it programming. You're disgusting.
Whether or not I filmed them is irrelevant. I already told you that I watched them move across the sun with my own eyes. Call me a liar.
Sunspots are evidence that the sun rotates. Do you deny this?
Are you getting paid to push your bullshit, are you just a willing dupe, or do you get your jollies by preying on the weak?
you sir are a repeater.
you sir are a repeater. everything you have said is simply repeating some bullshit you read in a book. microscopes and telescopes are the exact same principle. denying that shows your programming. bending light is not the same as magnifacation. and every other thing you stated is funny as fuck. all assumptions that actually some distant dead dude supposedly came up with and you just repeat. you keep mentioning 3 year old. i guess thats your trigger eh? you do not live on a giant spinning waterball in an infinate godless vaccum with people living upside down on the other side. thats what a 3 year old would be persuaded to believe.
but as i stated you keep believing those luciferian freemasonic nazis...............peace out
dudeface wrote:
You are deliberately lying. You know damn well I said the following:
You know damn well that I personally saw with my own eyes what you claim I read in a book. You know damn well that anyone can see sunspots, the moon and planets through a telescope available in stores. Instead of admitting that, you lie and deny, and try to dismiss people's direct observations as "simply repeating some bullshit you read in a book." You are a troll. You don't give a shit about the truth. You want to lie tell lies to people because you get off on it. You're sick.
Again, you lie while trying to obfuscate a very simple truth: telescopes see things which are far away, microscopes see things that are very close. These simple definitions are built right into the words themselves! You try to smear people who don't buy your lie as victims of "programming". Clearly you are the one trying to program others with your lies.
So? Are you trying to make a relevant point? No, you're trying to seed doubt, but of course you fail. In order to see small objects, you have to use lenses which bend light. This is grade 3 stuff. Try harder.
You're about as funny as cancer. This site is about sharing information. You're welcome to share your flat earth garbage, and even to announce that you believe the earth is flat. What you are not allowed to do on this site is deliberately lie and deceive people so you can get your jollies.
Lying again. You know damn well I'm speaking about direct observation. Your repeated lies are getting quite sad now.
Again with another lie. When are you going to stop? At no point did I repeat the phrase "3 year old". I said this:
My trigger is creeps who get off on deceiving people for fun.
Yes we do. You know it too, but get your jollies by convincing weak minded people otherwise. You're sick. Get help.
That's also what 99.99% of adults believe. Are you trying to make a valid point? Of course not!
No, I'll just keep believing my lying eyes, and people I trust, while you try to associate legitimate researchers with flat earthers.
You have no interest in wishing me peace, you lying hypocrite.
Do you claim that people who know the earth is an oblate spheroid are doing so not because of independently verifiable experimentation, but only because they read it in a book?
If the earth is flat, then either you have seen the edge of the world, or you are relying on what others have written.
So tell me dudeface, when you saw the edge of the world, why the fuck didn't you live stream it?
wow............you are
wow............you are determined to insult me into submission. you are super triggered dude. all that effort to insult me over and over. all of your statements are just repeating and repeating mainstream nonsense. good luck in your future programming.......my mind is free and open to everything. heres some ammo for you.............i think that bigfoot is real but have absolutely no proof. ................peace out
dudeface wrote:
Lie. Direct observation. You ignore that, and you ignore my questions. That's typical for intellectual bullies/cowards like you, but at least it's a step up from insulting people for not buying your bullshit.
Unlike you, I analyze the information I intake.
Your mind is free to be filled with garbage. Or is it? My guess is you're just a creepy troll who gets off on filling other people's minds with garbage. Keep that up and see how long your posting privilege lasts.
Flat Earth
It seems to me that it is not even worth the time or effort to debate a Flat Earther...
It's good to see torrent comments being made here though, so I don't really mind! It's entertaining to read this one in particular...
TheCorsair00 wrote:
I don't know...I find it kind of interesting and funny to see the interplay of vested worldviews. Nobody here knows the truth, we just have our opinions about what is true. And yet, in our own microcosm on this forum, we are willing to battle it out, to spit venom at others, same as we see splashed on the big media pages. The parallels are worth pondering.
For me, it is not about heliocentrism or geocentrism...it is about epistemology: how do we know what we know? If we can only see our own opinion, then we have work to do. All of us are enslaved by some particular awareness blocks... all of us are all stuck behind some kind of mental paywalls that we have bought into it, whether we are willing to admit it or not.
That's why I like the topic of altered states of consciousness so much. In a different state of mind, this topic just drops away. It literally does not matter anymore.
This is a strange marketplace of ideas, one I could never find in my everyday life. Some kind of diagon alley for people who find themselves slightly outside the spectrum of the normal
euxalot wrote:
I have a telescope that observes the planets, the moon, the sun, and the rest of that vast, beautiful sky. Observations are not opinions.
Science is not opinions. It's a method by which we can observe, and share our observations. That's a noble endeavor because it helps us better understand the universe.
One could speculate that what we all see in the sky is just an illusion conjured by a trickster, but that's not an observation, it's superstition, no more provable or valid than any other superstition. Life is too short for superstition. If humanity is to make progress in our quest to understand the universe, we must build upon observations gathered by our ancestors. There is no room for superstition on the path of knowledge. Superstition is an impediment, the opposite of knowldege.
fluffy wrote:
Strictly speaking, a theory is only genuinely scientific if it is falsifiable -- if it is possible in principle to establish that it is false.
I think what you are trying to say is this: what is relevant is reproducible results.
Even so, I am not really speaking about observations or reproducible results. I am speaking about their interpretations. This is where opinion enters. Folks quickly move on from observations to hypotheses to theories. This in itself is not a bad thing, but history has proven that we humans become very vested in such "beliefs", for that is what a scientific model finally morphs into. And I think that is what is at issue here. A model is not evidence.
I think it's great that you are bringing observations into the discussion. I am not actually disagreeing with you. I am, however, pointing out that you seem particularly vested in this idea, and I can tell you that most mystics would not entirely agree with what you are saying. It is true to a point, but no more. There is more under heaven and earth than meets the eye.
To me, a scientific model is nothing more than a map. And as we all know, a map should not be confused with the territory itself. We still have to experience this thing called earth and moon, and unfortunately no science is ever going to sufficiently package that experience in formulas and theories or models. All of this simply. just. *is*.
“Science is a self-defense against the truth.”
Actual quote: "...worse yet, whence all science? How now? Is the resolve to be so scientific about everything perhaps a kind of fear of, an escape from, pessimism? A subtle last resort against -- truth? " Nietszche, “Attempt at a Self-Criticism” in "The Birth of Tragedy", translated by Walter Kauffmann
i am not a flat earther. i am
i am not a flat earther. i am an individual who has come to my own conclusions. i question everything. especially the things that everyone else thinks is mainstream knowledge. seems everybody needs a label or group to be put in. believe me when i say i am a lone wolf. individual. that is it.........peace out
I recommend looking into
I recommend looking into occasionalism, not just Whitehead's variety that Terence McKenna advocates, but real medieval Al-Ghazali's version...
it's a deep wavelength that does not repeat
good day....................
good day.....................ya occasionalism is a very interesting concept but i am sure the athiest/non God believers would call it bunk. as for me I truely think the one thing the creator gave us was freewill which is directly related to your soul.........give up your freewill is like selling or giving/letting someone take your soul.
people ask how a God could let this or that bad thing happen...........its because freewill ......as soon as the creator influences a thing one way or another there cannot be freewill anymore. if we dont have freewill what is the point?
as my favorite band says
There are those who think that they were dealt a losing hand
The cards were stacked against them they weren't born in Lotus Land
All preordained, a prisoner in chains, a victim of venomous fate
Kicked in the face, you can pray for a place, in heaven's unearthly estate
You can choose a ready guide in some celestial voice
If you choose not to decide, you still have made a choice
You can choose from phantom fears and kindness that can kill
I will choose a path that's clear, I will choose Freewill
peace
dudeface wrote:
hahaha! nice
"though his mind is not for rent
to any god or government
aways hopeful yet discontent
he knows nothing is permanent
but change is"
hahaha
[quote=dudeface]
[quote=dudeface]
people ask how a God could let this or that bad thing happen...........its because freewill ......as soon as the creator influences a thing one way or another there cannot be freewill anymore. if we dont have freewill what is the point?
as my favorite band says
you ever heard of David hume? he has a differing viewpoint on "Free Will"
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/hume-freewill/
pax][quote=dudeface wrote:
Thanks, maestro. That link is very dense, so I checked around for anything that was a bit more accessible.
These two are more readable:
https://www.bbc.com/news/magazine-23666726
https://www.philosophersmag.com/essays/78-why-the-free-will-debate-never...
This one approaches the academic one you shared, but I found it more readable:
https://philosophynow.org/issues/40/Human_Freewill_and_Divine_Predestina...
This one https://www.theguardian.com/news/2021/apr/27/the-clockwork-universe-is-f... references some names that have graced these boards before:
"The difficulty in explaining the enigma of free will to those unfamiliar with the subject isn’t that it’s complex or obscure. It’s that the experience of possessing free will – the feeling that we are the authors of our choices – is so utterly basic to everyone’s existence that it can be hard to get enough mental distance to see what’s going on. ...And yet according to a growing chorus of philosophers and scientists, who have a variety of different reasons for their view, it also can’t possibly be the case. “This sort of free will is ruled out, simply and decisively, by the laws of physics,” says one of the most strident of the free will sceptics, the evolutionary biologist Jerry Coyne. Leading psychologists such as Steven Pinker and Paul Bloom agree, as apparently did the late Stephen Hawking, along with numerous prominent neuroscientists, including VS Ramachandran, who called free will “an inherently flawed and incoherent concept” in his endorsement of Sam Harris’s bestselling 2012 book Free Will, which also makes that argument. According to the public intellectual Yuval Noah Harari, free will is an anachronistic myth – useful in the past, perhaps, as a way of motivating people to fight against tyrants or oppressive ideologies, but rendered obsolete by the power of modern data science to know us better than we know ourselves, and thus to predict and manipulate our choices."
In any case, others may find it helpful to get the gist of the term "compatibilist". The question is whether determinism is compatible with free will, right? Intellectuals can define what “determinism” means, but no neat definition of free will has come forth since there is disagreement about what, exactly, it takes for an action to be free. The question of the compatibility of free will and determinism is then: can it ever be the case that choices A and B are open to you, despite the fact that the laws of nature (and the prior state of the universe) are consistent only with you doing A? The incompatibilist says “No”, while the compatibilist says “Yes.”
I should have just gone to
I should have just gone to youtube...live and learn:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KETTtiprINU
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JLDvb0Ws5SU
thats just my beliefs though
thats just my beliefs though .........
dudeface wrote:
with your faith and beliefs what are your thoughts on David Hume? did you look at the links?
good day..............ya
good day..............ya thats definately a dense subject..............i have not seen this particular writings from this writer. seems a lot to just casually comment on it. contrary to what the close minded people on here think i try not to beLIEve anything. i either know or dont know...................belief is the enemy of knowing ...............i am not afraid to say i dont agree but also dont know. the only real belief I have is in a creator of some sort........take that as you will. but at the age of 56 i have come to question EVERYTHING I have learned. that means everything. i will give that a read and add it to the knowledge base.............peace
dudeface wrote:
Simply and basically put...
If God is
1 - Omniscient
2 - Omnipresent
3 - Omnipotent
So knows what has happened, is happening and what will happen then free will is an illusion/lie
pax wrote:
I appreciate your summarizing it simply.
fyi Hume's contribution was that human freedom and moral responsibility can be reconciled with determinism.
euxalot wrote:
of course it's far more complex than that but that's a very very very simnple way to put one part of it into a bite size chunk that dudeface cab respond to ;)