293 replies to this topic

[SwampgasBalloonBoy]

Kibby has been reduced to being a drunk, a liar, someone not intelligent enough to know what he saw or was just confused due to waken up from a deep sleep. Can't we agree that there is not enough information to make a conclusive judgement on the guy? If people keep insisting he probably saw the moon, then those are the only option we have to label the guy. He could very well be any of those mentioned above, but he could also be telling the truth that what he saw was not the moon, because the moon "disappeared". Sometime the best answer is "I don't Know", but this seem to be hard for the skeptics.

[psyche101]

Sweetpumper, on 05 September 2012 - 03:42 PM, said:

Wow. You'd have to be awfully stupid to think those were 'UFO's'.

Or so blind drunk that you pee yourself.

[lost_shaman]

TheMacGuffin, on 05 September 2012 - 01:49 PM, said:

To my knowledge, I am the first investigator at UM to actually use that website about the visibility of astronomical bodies in just about any location of the world at any time.

Please note that not one "skeptic" ever thanked me for my contribution, but then they never have--not once.  They all praise each other continually, though, as if everything they utter is the greatest thing since sliced bread.

What are you talking about? It's the first link when a person types in "moonrise" and "arkansas" in Google! You really think people should be Praising you for that? Unbelievable!

[lost_shaman]

I've been a UM member for over Six years and I've provided tons of links over that time. I don't remember being "Thanked" for giving links. No, not hardly at all! More often than not it seems I'm chastised for almost every instance I don't provide links or evidence. Why would your UM experience be any different?

[Chrlzs]

TheMacGuffin, on 05 September 2012 - 01:49 PM, said:

To my knowledge, I am the first investigator at UM to actually use that website about the visibility of astronomical bodies in just about any location of the world at any time.

Yeah, most of us resort to hideously old-fashioned and simplistic things like planetarium software..  Here's a Stellarium screenshot of the view from Arkansas, Thursday, July 17, 2008, looking southwest at about 4.00am  (roughly.. - I couldn't be bothered being overly accurate, given the guy's lame description..)


And here's a zoomed in view of the Moon, showing the phase:


Note that the rather useless image that was posted with the story does have a bit of a hint of 'flattening' at the top left of the bright blob.., which just happens to match the same slight darkening in that area you can see in the Stellarium image showing the Moon's not-quite-full appearance.  Certainly not damning evidence, but...

Note also that JUPITER, a planet, is in the field of view.  I quote the 'witness' who stated  "I saw big full moon and another bright light.."  Hmmm.

Here, MacGuffin pointed to a website and he falsely claimed:

Quote

As I told you, I checked and none of {the planets} would have been visible in the Northern Hemisphere at that time

Yet the very website he linked to clearly states that Jupiter is visible throughout the night during July 2008. Nice one, MacG.

I invite others to check all this and verify/criticise - and I'll happily apologise if I have screwed up..  (BTW, there is a sorta deliberate error in something I've posted above, that I'm too lazy to fix - credibility points for anyone who can find it. Doesn't affect the points I'm making, tho..)


Naturally those images do not show any cloud conditions, but I believe that has been covered elsewhere..

Quote

Please note that not one "skeptic" ever thanked me for my contribution, but then they never have--not once.

I'm shocked and deeply saddened to hear that.  Shocked, I say.  So let me immediately address that omission, in very precise terms, by acknowledging some of the efforts that MacGuffin has put into this thread...

Right, let's go.  The IP posted a report, giving the date as 17 July 2008.  Imaginarynumber1 pointed out here, 100% correctly, that the Moon was full the night after, on 18 July 2008.

Macguffin, here, told IN1:

Quote

No, you got that one wrong. Try again.

Thanks, MacGuffin, for WRONGLY telling someone that they got something wrong.  There was absolutely nothing incorrect in what IN1 said.

MacGuffin then went on to say that:

Quote

The moon phase on July 17, 2012 was crescent moon, not full moon.

Thanks, MacGuffin, for telling us what the Moon phase was ... on a date FOUR YEARS after the event being discussed.

Then MacGuffin said:

Quote

You shouldn't propose obviously fake "explanations" like that because they are too easy to check.

Thanks MacGuffin, again, for stating this - even though it might be better if, next time, you told that to someone who WAS proposing fake "explanations".

Yes, thanks, MacGuffin, for showing us how to add four years to sightings, how to give out irrelevant information.  I'm surely grateful for this education.  Thanks also for later pointing out that serious investigators would have done this properly.  They would not have told fibs about the Jupiter thing, right?

I'd also like to thank MacG for showing everyone exactly how to avoid saying the magic words "I'm sorry, I made an error." and "Imaginarynumber1, I apologise for incorrectly accusing you of making false statements."

For anyone else who would like help thank MacGuffin fro all he has done here to 'help', I invite them to go back to pages one and two of this thread, and read it all carefully and watch how this debacle unfolded..


Any questions?  I'll be delighted to elaborate.

And no, I do not need any thanks..    I've already got HEAPS of enjoyment out of this thread!

[badeskov]

TheMacGuffin, on 05 September 2012 - 02:04 PM, said:

Imaginary made a few mistakes and kind of left in a huff, calling this a dumb topic and a dumb thread.

<snip>

He made one(!) mistake, which was very obviously a typo given the context. And he conceded and corrected that mistake. You, on the other hand, I'll let others judge for themselves, but pretty it ain't.

Cheers,
Badeskov

[Sweetpumper]

psyche101, on 06 September 2012 - 04:45 AM, said:

Or so blind drunk that you pee yourself.

I didn't read anything about him being blind drunk.

[badeskov]

TheMacGuffin, on 05 September 2012 - 01:49 PM, said:

To my knowledge, I am the first investigator at UM to actually use that website about the visibility of astronomical bodies in just about any location of the world at any time.

Oh, good grief. To your knowledge, somehow I am not surprised. But your knowledge have also turned out to be a lot more limited that I actually thought.

Quote

Please note that not one "skeptic" ever thanked me for my contribution, but then they never have--not once.  They all praise each other continually, though, as if everything they utter is the greatest thing since sliced bread.

Big surprise there - on several levels. Not only do your contributions in this thread alone speak for themselves, and not in any flattering way as shown by several posters here, but in addition you do have a knack for "creatively" interpreting the sources you have. That said, as this being an online discussion forum and all, your are supposed to source your material.

Cheers,
Badeskov

Edited by badeskov, 06 September 2012 - 03:37 PM.

[bee]

TheMacGuffin, on 05 September 2012 - 01:49 PM, said:

Please note that not one "skeptic" ever thanked me for my contribution, but then they never have--not once.  They all praise each other continually, though, as if everything they utter is the greatest thing since sliced bread.

L O L


and on topic...oh dear, someone saw a UFO and had a little accident....


.

[TheMacGuffin]

lost_shaman, on 06 September 2012 - 07:57 AM, said:

What are you talking about? It's the first link when a person types in "moonrise" and "arkansas" in Google! You really think people should be Praising you for that? Unbelievable!

Yes, because I'm the only one who ever thought of it, but you guys hate my guts so much--with pure blind hatred--that you can never admit even once that I have contributed something useful.

If anyone doubts that the "skeptics" have an irrational hatred of me, just look at their comments on this whole thread.

[TheMacGuffin]

badeskov, on 06 September 2012 - 03:32 PM, said:

Oh, good grief. To your knowledge, somehow I am not surprised. But your knowledge have also turned out to be a lot more limited that I actually thought.

Big surprise there - on several levels. Not only do your contributions in this thread alone speak for themselves, and not in any flattering way as shown by several posters here, but in addition you do have a knack for "creatively" interpreting the sources you have. That said, as this being an online discussion forum and all, your are supposed to source your material.

You're just mad because you didn't even think of such a simple thing yourself, or to check whether Venus was visible, but all but the most inept UFO investigators would know enough to look for those things.

Perhaps you really aren't the great "expert" and "scientific brain" that you paint yourself to be, although you sure go out of your way to take a dump on me every chance you get.

Can you believe how they're keeping this thing going, just to get in a few more swipes at me?  LOL

Edited by TheMacGuffin, 06 September 2012 - 04:26 PM.

[booNyzarC]

TheMacGuffin, on 06 September 2012 - 04:22 PM, said:

Yes, because I'm the only one who ever thought of it, but you guys hate my guts so much--with pure blind hatred--that you can never admit even once that I have contributed something useful.

If anyone doubts that the "skeptics" have an irrational hatred of me, just look at their comments on this whole thread.

What a joke.  Many skeptics have praised your contributions.  I've lost count of how many times I've praised your contributions and subject matter knowledge.

You haven't been victimized in this thread, but it is fascinating that you apparently think you have been.

[TheMacGuffin]

badeskov, on 06 September 2012 - 03:08 PM, said:

He made one(!) mistake, which was very obviously a typo given the context. And he conceded and corrected that mistake. You, on the other hand, I'll let others judge for themselves, but pretty it ain't.

You're right, he was just too wonderful for words, at least by your standards.  LOL

[TheMacGuffin]

Chrlzs, on 06 September 2012 - 12:52 PM, said:

Yeah, most of us resort to hideously old-fashioned and simplistic things like planetarium software..  Here's a Stellarium screenshot of the view from Arkansas, Thursday, July 17, 2008, looking southwest at about 4.00am  (roughly.. - I couldn't be bothered being overly accurate, given the guy's lame description..)

Any questions?  I'll be delighted to elaborate.

And no, I do not need any thanks..    I've already got HEAPS of enjoyment out of this thread!

No, I don't have any more questions.

Listen to these guys, they didn't even think of these things but now they're attacking me because I did.  It's incredible!  

No matter what I do or say, they are going to criticize me, which I realized a long time ago.  You just can't win with these "skeptics", no matter what.

Edited by TheMacGuffin, 06 September 2012 - 04:31 PM.

[TheMacGuffin]

booNyzarC, on 06 September 2012 - 04:27 PM, said:

What a joke.  Many skeptics have praised your contributions.

They most certainly have not!  Never.  Maybe you do, grudgingly and occasionally, but that's definitely not the norm for the "skeptics" around here.

I wager you, Boon, that if one of them had thought to look for the times of moon rise or the movements of Venus, they would be falling all over each other to praise themselves, but NEVER when I thought of it before any of them.

You see their reactions here, just because I thought of these simple things first and they did not.  That's a double standard.

Edited by TheMacGuffin, 06 September 2012 - 04:44 PM.