What are crop circles ?

[Daniel Balan]

4 hours ago, Leo Gura said:

I am teaching you serious epistemology.

The resemblance to your Nazi neighbor is superficial.

The point is that your mind holds gross double-standards and biases in is applications of proof, evidence, and reasons. You are unconscious of this double-standard so you take something like the existence of Napoleon as a fact but not UFOs, even though in fact the evidence for both are of the same kind.

99% of what you know is unverified hearsay. Yet you don't act like it and you criticize others for lack of verification in their worldview. That's the self-bias you're overlooking.

This is the topic of skepticism. Skepticism is badly misused by the ego-mind. I am always pointing out the double-standards and biases in the mind's application of skepticism. If you are going to be skeptical about UFOs then I get to use that same skepticism against everything you believe. When we do that you will see that your worldview cannot pass the test.

This UFO topic is precisely one of bad epistemology. But bad epistemology on the part of the normies, the UFO deniers. They deny UFOs on the basis of being careful, rigorous, and scientific, but in fact they are being sloppy, lazy, closedminded, and unscientific. Again, because people do not understand the epistemology of science properly. There is nothing unscientific about aliens visiting Earth.

Thanks a lot for this response Leo! I will deeply contemplate on it because you have said things in that reply that shook my whole epistemic foundation. Thank you!

[Ash55]

12 hours ago, Leo Gura said:

Many besides Lazar.

Plenty of credible whistleblowers.

I have several good UFO books in my book list.

The Roswell crash basically explains everything. The US gov has bodies from that crash. Study Roswell.

I found this guy yesterday talking about crazy shit namely the project looking glass bob Lazar mentioned

I would be really cool tho if we can build an element 115 space ship and visit other star systems

 

[Dazgwny]

12 hours ago, AION said:

so is your alien consciousness discovery linked to aliens we are seeing in the news or what?

These comparisons make me laugh at times. Leo can correct me if I’m wrong here. But I’m pretty sure that his labelled ‘alien conciousness’ is not that of some alien like being who might be walking around on another planet in this physical universe, or flying ufo’s to earth or whatever. From states of consciousness that I’ve found myself in, it seems quite clear to me that what he means is a state of consciousness so alien to what you can process from an ordinary human state, or even from huge degrees of awakened states. A completely different level, a completely different dimension of consciousness, that there is no physical being, there is no walking around, no physical universe. So beyond that, so incredibly clever, gymnastics of a mind that’s so in sync, doing its own shit, that I have no idea what is, hence why it’s so alien. But it’s all just so incredible on levels that unless you directly experience it, you just will not at all understand. I feel I can gain this limited understanding of the direction it goes mind wise, because of my previous awakenings and how they work in a sense. Literally off to a completely different dimension. Explanation is likely near on impossible. But the memory and a knowing will just sit within you. Anyway, yea that’s much more aligned with what I imagine alien conciousness to be, rather than the mind of a physical alien being that’s knocking around flying spaceships and that to different planets. Although a mind that is doing that, would obviously be more advanced than our own, but I’m certain that’s not what he means

[Joshe]

15 hours ago, Leo Gura said:

I am teaching you serious epistemology.

The resemblance to your Nazi neighbor is superficial.

The point is that your mind holds gross double-standards and biases in is applications of proof, evidence, and reasons. You are unconscious of this double-standard so you take something like the existence of Napoleon as a fact but not UFOs, even though in fact the evidence for both are of the same kind.

99% of what you know is unverified hearsay. Yet you don't act like it and you criticize others for lack of verification in their worldview. That's the self-bias you're overlooking.

This is the topic of skepticism. Skepticism is badly misused by the ego-mind. I am always pointing out the double-standards and biases in the mind's application of skepticism. If you are going to be skeptical about UFOs then I get to use that same skepticism against everything you believe. When we do that you will see that your worldview cannot pass the test.

This UFO topic is precisely one of bad epistemology. But bad epistemology on the part of the normies, the UFO deniers. They deny UFOs on the basis of being careful, rigorous, and scientific, but in fact they are being sloppy, lazy, closedminded, and unscientific. Again, because people do not understand the epistemology of science properly. There is nothing unscientific about aliens visiting Earth.

Serious epistemology doesn't seek to flatten all claims. It asks that we adjust our confidence based on the strength and coherence of the evidence.

The key distinction in Napoleon and aliens on earth is to be found in the evidentiary weight and corroboration of the two claims. Napoleon: massive convergent corroboration - thousands of consistent records from independent sources. UFOs: no corroboration or weak at best, unverifiable anecdotes, blurry media, no physical artifacts confirmed by independent analysis.

You can rationally believe Napoleon existed without direct evidence because the network of corroboration is overwhelming. You can rationally reject "aliens visiting earth" because it's not and you have not empirically verified it.

This is not a double standard. It's a proper respect for evidentiary weight. 

Edited Tuesday at 03:40 PM by Joshe

[Joshe]

Leo may have proven it to himself, but he has shown no proofs, and when asked for them, he simply says the proofs are in the various books he's recommended. The problem with this is a collection of books is insufficient to arrive at his conclusion, because you would need his interpretive frame to arrive at it, which books can't provide. 

You can read fairy tales until you're blue in the face. Just stick with it - sooner or later you'll know the dragons are real.

[Joshe]

10 hours ago, Wilhelm44 said:

@Joshe  Aha, here's the evidence you were looking for. Case closed. Now get some rest Mr Epistemology. 

😂

[Natasha Tori Maru]

@Joshe but you haven't seriously looked at the network of corroboration for UFOs.

So this sort of falls flat, no? 

You keep doing this - coming at the topic with no real research. You just default back to 'lol why would you claim aliens as the explanation when I could have farted and it is a more logical claim!' 

Read the books. Look up US Nimitz. Watch the congressional hearings. Start with David Fraver. 

Do some justice to yourself! You seem to want to take the time to debunk all of this. So take the time to research. Arbitrary use of time to my eyes.

[VioleGrace]

On 21/10/2025 at 0:53 AM, Leo Gura said:

Should you believe me about UFOs? Certainly not. Which is why I told you to educate yourself, not to believe me.

Can you explain me how do you know that what you learn and the info you are getting are truthful the fact you are getting can be false or belief based etc ... Like conspiracy theory.

How do you choose to believe in UFO or anyother thing if you never directly experienced and you can respond to that question thoutgh self inquiry ? 

 

[Leo Gura]

2 hours ago, VioleGrace said:

Can you explain me how do you know that what you learn and the info you are getting are truthful the fact you are getting can be false or belief based etc ... Like conspiracy theory.

How do you choose to believe in UFO or anyother thing if you never directly experienced and you can respond to that question thoutgh self inquiry ? 
 

The same way you choose to believe things you have no direct experience of.

Don't act like you and I are different.

Edited yesterday at 01:57 AM by Leo Gura

[Joshe]

7 hours ago, Natasha Tori Maru said:

Read the books. Look up US Nimitz. Watch the congressional hearings. Start with David Fraver. 

Thanks, I’ll look into them. 

[Ramasta9]

Aliens are also an external reflection of the internal consciousness. They visit and communicate / exchange with some people and tribes out there, this is common among my fields, especially those who have the vibrational frequency to be receptive enough to receive their information / exchange.

Some people will never attract them because they are not ready for such a energy, and don't believe in them in the first place.

Ultimately its all you and yourself playing this big cosmic game, the more fun you have, the better you play

[VioleGrace]

17 hours ago, Leo Gura said:

Don't act like you and I are different.

That's not what i mean, on the contrary. 
 

17 hours ago, Leo Gura said:

The same way you choose to believe things you have no direct experience of.

To be honnest i don't know about UFO existence and i am not really curious about it, my question is not about that, my question is more about "how did you decided that this book is truthfull or not ?" 

I mean it is easy to fall on traps, biais, misinterpretation or self deception, when i "choose" to believe in something you have not direct experience with, you have to base it on your own reflection.

Assuming that you manage to put aside bias and self deceptions aside, the facts that you get to reflect on can be totally created or wrong for different reasons, and you might not even see it.

And even trying to think logically can have flaws you are the one who taught me that.

Especially on thing like UFO or politics where you have to rely on medias and externals sources that you cannot easily verify the epistemic integrity unlike serious scientific studies or philosophy where it "seems" easier to spot and compare check theses things.

Cause i understand that ones decide to believe in UFO like ones decide to believe in WW2, nazi, history and 99% of what we know but the question is : how do we distingish load of bullshit from actual possible truth ? 

How do you assume that your sources are good or not ? 

I am simply wondering cause i otften asking my self these question when i conclude on some things after educating myself on.

 

Edited 19 hours ago by VioleGrace

[Oppositionless]

Seems a little absurd to travel a bajillion light years just to muck around in someone's corn field.

[Joshe]

4 hours ago, VioleGrace said:

How do you assume that your sources are good or not ? Are you 100% sure ? Is it a feeling ? 

He won't answer without appealing to his own special awareness or rank hierarchy. Here's what my process looks like (non-authority-based): 

The best tool I've found for evaluating evidence that can't be verified is making reads on the source. 

 

Assess for all these and you get a very good base from which to start a more rigorous assessment if you want. But often, this assessment alone - combined with 30 minutes of evidence gathering is enough to arrive very close to the truth, as long as you don't blunder in your assessment. 

Incentives are VERY important. There's a motive behind EVERY claim, true or false.  I always ask "what does the one making this claim stand to gain?". Credibility assessment first, verification second.

The process is usually non-linear and often doesn't begin and end with an answer in a single session, especially when evaluating things like political pundits and influencers. It takes time to accumulate and process the data, which is both a conscious and unconscious process. 

What I'm describing is more of an intuitive form of cognition where the gain is speed and context sensitivity with a tradeoff of some explicit traceability. You could think of it like a triage layer where if a source fails your motive/integrity read, it might not deserve a deep audit.

Obviously, this "people-and-incentive" heuristic is just one tool and not a replacement for a more robust epistemic framework, but I found it gets me closer to accurate than most, and much faster than evaluating things like the full chain of custody for every piece of evidence. You need to develop high-quality heuristics and constantly refine them through the process of observation and critical thinking. 

Lastly, any time realize you believed something false was true, you have to get to the bottom of that ASAP and figure out how the seed of falsehood was planted, then patch that exploit for good. If you make the same mistakes 3 times, you aren't refining properly.

This is just how I operate. I'm not sure how compatible it is for others. If you have access to ChatGPT, you could use it to develop your own epistemic framework, which might start off looking something like this: 

Edited 21 hours ago by Joshe

[Leo Gura]

6 hours ago, VioleGrace said:

"how did you decided that this book is truthfull or not ?" 

The answer is simply Intelligence.

At the end of the day Intelligence decides everything.

Edited 19 hours ago by Leo Gura

[VioleGrace]

51 minutes ago, Leo Gura said:

The answer is simply Intelligence.

 

You mean infinite intelligence ? 

That is something that i can't understand yet

[Leo Gura]

3 hours ago, VioleGrace said:

You mean infinite intelligence ? 

That is something that i can't understand yet

No, just intelligence in general.