Author George Knapp  (Read 661590 times)

1 Member and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Re: George Knapp
« Reply #210 on: September 01, 2010, 05:14:23 PM »
Okay, fine, the shadow government made Bob's MIT career disappear. Right down to getting their hands on every paper he was ever on and re-writing things like all the programs from graduation, yearbooks etc.

Why can't he remember the subject of his own thesis? Why can't he recall the name of his faculty adviser? Why can't he come up with one student or faculty member that was there at the same time he was? Did the CIA buy a whole shipload of Peeman's mind and memory wiping cream and erase the memories of everyone at MIT? (If they did they never paid me for it).
ok, you've sold me. 


lazar is a jism satchel.

jism satchel<- ;D

Re: George Knapp
« Reply #211 on: September 01, 2010, 07:59:42 PM »
Okay, fine, the shadow government made Bob's MIT career disappear. Right down to getting their hands on every paper he was ever on and re-writing things like all the programs from graduation, yearbooks etc.

Why can't he remember the subject of his own thesis? Why can't he recall the name of his faculty adviser? Why can't he come up with one student or faculty member that was there at the same time he was? Did the CIA buy a whole shipload of Peeman's mind and memory wiping cream and erase the memories of everyone at MIT? (If they did they never paid me for it).
ok, you've sold me. 


lazar is a jism satchel.

jism satchel<- ;D

a.k.a. scrotum

Re: George Knapp
« Reply #212 on: September 01, 2010, 08:56:18 PM »
Okay, fine, the shadow government made Bob's MIT career disappear. Right down to getting their hands on every paper he was ever on and re-writing things like all the programs from graduation, yearbooks etc.

Why can't he remember the subject of his own thesis? Why can't he recall the name of his faculty adviser? Why can't he come up with one student or faculty member that was there at the same time he was? Did the CIA buy a whole shipload of Peeman's mind and memory wiping cream and erase the memories of everyone at MIT? (If they did they never paid me for it).
ok, you've sold me. 


lazar is a jism satchel.

jism satchel<- ;D

a.k.a. scrotum

Hey folks! Worried about the safety of your seed after the apocalypse? Ever ask yourself; "how will I have normal children after my nut sack has been irradiated by the inevitable nuclear holocaust"? Just order the only lead lined, radiation proof Jism Satchel, new from Peenman Enterprises.  Just make a deposit every day in our sturdy satchel, then pop it in your freezer. Come the end, be it atomic war, saucer invasion or the much anticipated end of the Mayan calender, you'll have a satchel full of frozen little Willies ready to repopulate your neighborhood with non mutant offspring. Just grab the ol' lady and a turkey baster and your ready to be your very own Adam. New and only from Peenman!


Re: George Knapp
« Reply #213 on: September 01, 2010, 09:09:15 PM »
i thought you were going to pitch eNads ... shipped in an indestructible tough tote

Re: George Knapp
« Reply #214 on: September 02, 2010, 01:59:18 AM »
Peenman...
classic.


I guess you could say a jism satchel would, yes, be a sctotum... but when i use the term, i'm literally envisioning a small, leather satchel full of jism, sealed off at the top with a leather draw string with native american beads (black) hanging from each end.

Just sayin.

Re: George Knapp
« Reply #215 on: September 07, 2010, 10:37:50 PM »
Like the Phoenix lights

Personally, I am absolutely satisfied with the explanation that the Phoenix Lights were military flare testing.

(a) Lt. Col. Ed Jones of the Maryland Air National Guard has twice confirmed to media he was involved in a night flare drop from A-10 Thunderbolts outside of Phoenix

(b) I wish I could find it off-hand, however, a KNXV news helicopter photographed a known and confirmed nighttime flare drop happening over Luke AFB in 2008 against amateur footage of the Phoenix Lights and the two looked absolutely identical. I need to check the KNXV web archives ... it's pretty astonishing how on the mark the two are.


I totally agree that the Maryland reserve air force group stationed at Phoenix could have dropped flares that night and this explains one part of what happened. Rather clever way to cover up an event. I saw the Discovery Channel documentary of the 10:30 pm Estrella Mountains flare event. It was impressive and convincing. But the real event occurred earlier starting well north of Phoenix and hours before the flare drop. Mostly I am riveted by the eyewitness accounts of a huge triangle craft flying over houses and people at a very low altitude throughout the region.

Like I was saying. Explain or create one event that is plausible and it replaces 100's of eyewitness accounts by putting doubt in other peoples minds. I cannot imagine a flying silent triangle the size of a football field flying over my head blocking out the stars. So those people MUST be wrong.


On a side note. That was a great show by George Knapp Sunday night. Bringing the very difficult subject of the many worlds theory into context with a tangible experiential feel.

I definitely understand what you're saying, I just personally don't put any credence into eyewitness accounts at all. At one point I did but, since the Norway Spiral which - seemed to me to be - startling and out of this world and went a full day or two without conventional explanation I have to believe there are other things equally as - or more - incredible in appearance that never get photographed and so don't have the benefit of crowd sourced identification. It was really purely by chance that the Norway Spiral got photographed. Had it not been we might well be sitting here discussing it as the greatest UFO eyewitness sighting of the modern era, instead of an out-of-control Russian ICBM.

I also caught Knapp's show on Sunday and thought it was fantastic. I heard Bell when he interviewed Lanza some time ago and, hate to say it, I thought Knapp did an even better job than Art.


I agree. Eyewitness testimony is shaky and usually false 99% of the time. It is that 1% of the time that I am more interested in. I have a Masters Degree in Psychology so I like to visually see a person when they are being interviewed and describing an event. I want close encounters of the 1st to 3rd kind. And I think those people do not really talk about their sighting because it is so unexplainable to them and people automatically discredit the event. I rarely talk about my sightings in ANY detail. It is too unreal.

Regarding the ICBM's - I lived in the Santa Barbara area for a few years, outside of Vandenberg and witnessed 2 ICBM test launches in 4 years. One in the daytime and one in the middle of the night. They are a truly amazing sight if you get a chance to witness the event. The daytime launch was almost spooky the way the smoke hung in the air and was an unusual color. But you knew what they were with a little thought  It seems like people are really out of control with sightings these days and tiny anomalous lights mean nothing in the UFO/ET/Dimensional being conjecture.

I saw strange lights for about 5 seconds driving on I-5 going North near Fresno. About 8 lights, the size of headlights, went 10-15 feet above the highway from west to east and about 40 or 50 yards ahead of me disappearing into a field. Since I was driving my unconscious mind said there was a bridge up ahead (being from the East coast where there are plenty of bridges over highways) and the lights were a truck. But a bridge never came and I looked to the right of me trying to find an airport or something, anything to explain an object flying over a highway and going out of sight. But there was nothing, just blackness for miles and miles. All I can say is it was unexplainable with the information I have.

I am in the UFO camp that says what is happening is unexplainable by our standards of understanding the universe. Think like a particle physicist would. You don't see the actual particle. You only see the trace evidence or the effects it has on our physical world. I wonder if "like the when the Native Americans saw the 1st ships coming from Europe and they made up godlike stories about what they were" or as Jacques Valle says "we need to look towards the absurd to get any sort of understanding of the phenomenon" that we can only see these objects as something closer to our understanding but in reality it is so fantastical that it is currently unknowable.

Take a look at - http://www.dimensions-math.org/Dim_reg_AM.htm   (at least to the 4th or 5th video) regarding 4th dimensional theory

or



for 10 dimensional theory. I would say the phenomena is best explained by the edges of what we can currently understand and comprehend. Hopefully I have not insulted anyone by providing links to things people already know and have accounted for. Just my 2 cents but I respect others viewpoint.

There are definitely a lot of unexplained things all around us. However, the absolutely astronomical odds of extraterrestrials sneaking around on the planet have to be a perspective creator.

It seems highly unlikely and quite improbable to me that a cabal of international pranksters is engineering UFO events and has been doing so for the last 50 years,  however, in the grand scheme of things I'm sure it's statistically more probable than aliens sneaking around the planet. On the spectrum of improbability there are many, many things that need to be eliminated before a discussion about extraterrestrials / cryptoterrestrials / extradimensionals can begin. We seem to jump directly to a ET / CT / ED hypothesis because it's most interesting.

Re: George Knapp
« Reply #216 on: September 08, 2010, 04:33:13 AM »
Quote
I'm sure it's statistically more probable than aliens sneaking around the planet. On the spectrum of improbability there are many, many things that need to be eliminated before a discussion about extraterrestrials / cryptoterrestrials / extradimensionals can begin. We seem to jump directly to a ET / CT / ED hypothesis because it's most interesting.

I used to agree with that but now I am not so sure. We can already visualize a day when man transfers his conciseness to some sort of self replicating machine. This may begin to happen in our lifetimes. Self replicating machines, perhaps machines but made of living tissue, could overcome the vast distance problem.


Re: George Knapp
« Reply #217 on: September 16, 2010, 09:02:50 AM »
I remember hearing this guy in the 90s, just wondering if there is any update on Bob Lazar and what you think about his story.

Re: George Knapp
« Reply #218 on: September 16, 2010, 07:08:03 PM »
I remember hearing this guy in the 90s, just wondering if there is any update on Bob Lazar and what you think about his story.
there was recently a rather lengthy discussion about lazar in another thread, but i don't blame you for creating a new thread, because you'd have to be totally searching for this discussion to find it.


it starts here.


i'll go ahead and merge this thread with that thread.


edit:  and now, after the merge, "that" thread is now "this" thread.  tee hee.

Re: George Knapp
« Reply #219 on: September 20, 2010, 01:12:51 AM »
Anyone listening to Knapp's show right now?  It's an MV orgasm night - conspiracies & why suckers I believe them.
 

 
 

Re: George Knapp
« Reply #220 on: September 23, 2010, 07:05:27 AM »
I couldn't agree more.   Maybe it's just me, but there is something solid about Knapp's delivery.   Challenging without being offensive or condescending; he would be the heir apparent to Art, in my opinion, anyway.  Doesn't have Art's flair, but then again, who does?

I must admit, I never cared for Ian.  His sense of humor is juvenile and, well, stupid (to me anyway) and I think he's too rude to callers and guests.   The ultimate wish:  Art comes out of retirement and occupies the mike every Saturday.  Sigh, well, one can hope....

Re: George Knapp
« Reply #221 on: September 23, 2010, 07:52:20 AM »
I couldn't agree more.   Maybe it's just me, but there is something solid about Knapp's delivery.   Challenging without being offensive or condescending; he would be the heir apparent to Art, in my opinion, anyway.  Doesn't have Art's flair, but then again, who does?

I must admit, I never cared for Ian.  His sense of humor is juvenile and, well, stupid (to me anyway) and I think he's too rude to callers and guests.   The ultimate wish:  Art comes out of retirement and occupies the mike every Saturday.  Sigh, well, one can hope....

Art on every Saturday would be great.  However, from a corporate perspective that move would suck the oxygen out of the room for the other hosts.  Listenership would probably dramatically shift, and be heavily concentrated on that day.  This would further destabilize an already irrevocably floundering program run by George Noory.
 
A suggestion:  The empty suits should re-name the program "The Art Bell Show" - featuring George Noory, George Knapp and Ian Punnett as guest hosts between Art's quarterly appearances.  A little imagination never hurts.

Re: George Knapp
« Reply #222 on: September 23, 2010, 08:14:24 AM »

A suggestion:  The empty suits should re-name the program "The Art Bell Show" - featuring George Noory, George Knapp and Ian Punnett as guest hosts between Art's quarterly appearances.  A little imagination never hurts.

ahhh the light at the end of the tunnel approach.  i like. too bad there would be long stretches of noory

Re: George Knapp
« Reply #223 on: September 26, 2010, 11:05:17 PM »
Sunday 26 Sept 2010~George Knapp w/Mark Pilkington
Mark Pilkington reveals the long history of UFOria and its parallels with espionage, psychological warfare and advanced military technology. He joins George Knapp to talk about who's behind the UFO disinformation campaign.
 
Looking forward to the show starting in about an hour.  Knapp rocks.

Re: George Knapp
« Reply #224 on: September 26, 2010, 11:09:14 PM »
Sunday 26 Sept 2010~George Knapp w/Mark Pilkington
Mark Pilkington reveals the long history of UFOria and its parallels with espionage, psychological warfare and advanced military technology. He joins George Knapp to talk about who's behind the UFO disinformation campaign.

Re: George Knapp
« Reply #225 on: September 26, 2010, 11:11:34 PM »
Check out some of the items that have recently caught George Knapp's attention, including a website that claims to show evidence of a pre-flood culture in America as well as news stories on UFOs tampering with nuclear missiles and conspiracy theories that turned out to be true:
   

Re: George Knapp
« Reply #226 on: September 27, 2010, 09:19:26 PM »
i thought this show was very good.  this guest was basically a doubter but i'm fine with skeptics.  though i think hard line doubters - like shermer - are too inflexible.  with someone like that, you'd have to have a mothership land on his front lawn before he'd even consider it seriously.  i think if you have numerous visual sightings combined with radar contacts then that's enough to make a compelling anecdote - not proof but merits investigations.  the French government investigated a sighting reported by a farmer and concluded in a report that was unintentionally leaked concluded that an ET craft had landed.  so these skeptics tend to isolate themselves much the same way that believers isolate themselves. 

Re: George Knapp
« Reply #227 on: September 27, 2010, 09:52:00 PM »
The show was OK in my opinion, I was disappointed how Pilkington treated the major UFO cases, namely Roswell and the Iran pilot sightings and the reasons he gave why, I also had a hard time understanding him, his voice had too many inflections or maybe it was his accent.  I certainly have never had a problem understand Graham Hancoock or Colm Kelleher.

Re: George Knapp
« Reply #228 on: September 27, 2010, 10:17:58 PM »
maybe it wasn't 'very good'.  i think i was just pleased to hear Knapp's professionalism.  not the Usual Hack

Re: George Knapp
« Reply #229 on: September 28, 2010, 12:05:19 AM »
I added this guy to the "worst guest" thread.  I thought he was extremely dull, and frankly, added nothing to the subject.

George Knapp is great though.

Re: George Knapp
« Reply #230 on: September 28, 2010, 05:36:15 AM »
     Springsteen, Elvis (Costello), and even the Gin Blossoms?  That, and his healthy dose of skepticism, may just make him a keeper.
     Isn't there an "all purpose Knapp" thread somewhere around here?   

Re: George Knapp
« Reply #231 on: September 28, 2010, 07:48:06 AM »
Isn't there an "all purpose Knapp" thread somewhere around here?
there probably is, but i'm not finding it at the moment.  i'm going to have to rearrange how threads pertaining to particular hosts are organized and placed.  there is waaaay to much fragmentation.

Re: George Knapp
« Reply #232 on: September 29, 2010, 08:17:34 AM »
I read on one of the host threads that some consolidation was going to be done on the threads, maybe for Knapp.  I saw when I looked at the pinned threads that there is now one for Ian.  Is it possible for George Knapp to have one too? 

Re: George Knapp
« Reply #233 on: September 29, 2010, 08:18:26 AM »
I read on one of the host threads that some consolidation was going to be done on the threads, maybe for Knapp.  I saw when I looked at the pinned threads that there is now one for Ian.  Is it possible for George Knapp to have one too?
yup, i'm working on it.  it's pretty time consuming. 

Re: George Knapp
« Reply #234 on: September 29, 2010, 09:09:33 AM »
ok... my eye sockets are now bleeding, and i think the task is complete.  i have combined every known george knapp thread into this one super-mega-awesome-ultra-bonus knapp thread.  the same has been done with all ian punnett threads.


please, for the purpose of avoiding fragmentation (which has become a bit of a problem), don't create new punnett or knapp threads unless absolutely necessary.  just add to the two that already exist.  besides, your post will be more likely to get attention if you do it that way.

Re: George Knapp
« Reply #235 on: September 29, 2010, 01:35:53 PM »
  besides, your post will be more likely to get attention if you do it that way.

I'm sorry for your eye sockets - I know the feeling well.  BUT - -- I think these uber-long threads are very hard to read and confusing.  JMO

Re: George Knapp
« Reply #236 on: September 29, 2010, 04:03:59 PM »
you could block all images of Alex Jones to the site.  that should reduce eye socket bleeding

Re: George Knapp
« Reply #237 on: September 29, 2010, 05:06:24 PM »
you could block all images of Alex Jones to the site.  that should reduce eye socket bleeding


Re: George Knapp
« Reply #238 on: September 29, 2010, 05:11:18 PM »

Now now Mr. Knight - that was just plain MEAN!  (though funny as hell)

Re: George Knapp
« Reply #239 on: September 29, 2010, 06:22:34 PM »
  besides, your post will be more likely to get attention if you do it that way.

I'm sorry for your eye sockets - I know the feeling well.  BUT - -- I think these uber-long threads are very hard to read and confusing.  JMO
well, as long as we're offering opinions, i think you're wrong. 


all user quotes remain in context and linked, and that is 95% of the anti-confusion battle.  also, i see no point in having 80 tiny and abandoned ian punnett threads and 67 similar george knapp threads all floating around in the ether, none getting attention, and none growing.  at least this way, what formerly was a mess is now consolidated, organized, easy to locate, and frequented by users.  furthermore, none of those threads were all that different from one another.  i know.  i had to look at all of them in order to pull this off.


i'm having a very bad day.  sorry if i sound short.