423 replies to this topic

[booNyzarC]

TheMacGuffin, on 04 October 2012 - 05:38 PM, said:

If you knew, you gave not the slightest hint of it, nor did any of you Septic Skeptics bother to post them--or even inform anyone of their existence.  Why is that?

Why should I have mentioned something that was already mentioned in the original account?


To be completely honest, as far as UFO pictures go, this one isn't all that great in my opinion.  And as far as your 'who posted this or that' pissing contest goes, I really don't care one way or the other.  To me it just looks like a blurry flying beetle or other similar insect.  I'm not saying that this is definitely what it is, but that's what it looks like to me.  You are free to disagree with that assessment, but just because I've raised it as a possible explanation doesn't make me "Septic Skeptic" and I don't appreciation your insinuation that I am, or the tone with which you address people who merely offer possibilities about UFOs in general.

[TheMacGuffin]

Sweetpumper, on 04 October 2012 - 05:53 PM, said:

I'm sure he knows the other person about as well as he knows you.

I don't know either one, and can't say that I want to.

[Euphorbia]

TheMacGuffin, on 04 October 2012 - 05:56 PM, said:

I don't know either one, and can't say that I want to.

You have exemplary manners!

[TheMacGuffin]

As I said, regardless of the format in which they are posted on the Internet, the original pictures from the camera show that they have not been altered or manipulated.  Someone already checked all that.

http://www.abovetops...ead886584/pg12

[Euphorbia]

TheMacGuffin, on 04 October 2012 - 06:10 PM, said:

As I said, regardless of the format in which they are posted on the Internet, the original pictures from the camera show that they have not been altered or manipulated.  Someone already checked all that.

http://www.abovetops...ead886584/pg12

Do you not realize that EXIF data can be altered? Hell, even I can do that!

[TheMacGuffin]

Euphorbia, on 04 October 2012 - 06:15 PM, said:

Do you not realize that EXIF data can be altered? Hell, even I can do that!

I'm sure that you have, but you have offered no proof of any kind for all your assertions on here.

I will admit that I have a HUGE suspicion of anyone involved in photography these days, with all the new-fangled tricks and equipment that they use.  I strongly distrust the whole bunch, no matter what they say, but in this case it seems that someone has bothered to analyze the pictures in much greater detail that usual to rule out fakes and hoaxes.

Edited by TheMacGuffin, 04 October 2012 - 06:25 PM.

[booNyzarC]

thewonderman, on 04 October 2012 - 05:15 PM, said:

Its clearly no bug and what would this something else entierly be ? a bag ?

Just face it no one can explain it, it could just be a blur of paint that someone has added to the photo.

What makes it so clear to you that it couldn't be a bug?  Did you even bother looking at the video I posted previously and comparing?

Quote

Check out the video in this link.  Near the end one of the beetles takes flight...  Notice the blur...  at the correct angle, we'd have a pretty decent match with the Crete picture in my opinion.

Enjoy

And again, I'm not saying that it definitely has to be a bug--I'm just raising the possibility because that's what it looks like to me, but when people start saying that it couldn't possibly be one I'd like to understand their reasoning.  So far all I've seen in this regard are declarations that it couldn't be one.  How useful is such a declaration with no substance behind it?

[White Unicorn]

Euphorbia, on 04 October 2012 - 06:15 PM, said:

Do you not realize that EXIF data can be altered? Hell, even I can do that!

The reality of this is much like a robber breaking into a store and a person takes a photo as evidence.   All data can be altered so are we not to believe any data presented. It can be proved wrong but it can't be proved true. All the witnesses also can also be lying but can you prove they are not?  The robber would like you as his defense witness!

[Euphorbia]

TheMacGuffin, on 04 October 2012 - 06:18 PM, said:

I'm sure that you have, but you have offered no proof of any kind for all your assertions on here.

I will admit that I have a HUGE suspicion of anyone involved in photography these days, with all the new-fangled tricks and equipment that they use.  I strongly distrust the whole bunch, no matter what they say, but in this case it seems that someone has bothered to analyze the pictures in much greater detail that usual to rule out fakes and hoaxes.

I'm sorry, who's the one with the assertions? That would be you! All I'm asking for is reliable information! Again, how do you know this guy's reliable?

You say you have "suspicion of anyone involved in photography these days", yet somehow this guy's A-OK?

[TheMacGuffin]

booNyzarC, on 04 October 2012 - 06:26 PM, said:

What makes it so clear to you that it couldn't be a bug?

Because the person who analyzed the pictures said it wasn't, and I have yet to see anyone on here do better.

[TheMacGuffin]

Euphorbia, on 04 October 2012 - 06:32 PM, said:

yet somehow this guy's A-OK?

No, I don't think anyone is OK, but I see evidence that someone has analyzed these pictures for fraud in more detail than usual, and no one on here has done any better.  They are just talking about bugs, birds and bags, based on their own whims.

Edited by TheMacGuffin, 04 October 2012 - 06:37 PM.

[thewonderman]

TheMacGuffin, on 04 October 2012 - 06:34 PM, said:

Because the person who analyzed the pictures said it wasn't, and I have yet to see anyone on here do better.

I'm sorry I do like the majority of you're posts but you can't just belive what someone says when you have never even met them.

[Euphorbia]

White Unicorn, on 04 October 2012 - 06:28 PM, said:

The reality of this is much like a robber breaking into a store and a person takes a photo as evidence.   All data can be altered so are we not to believe any data presented. It can be proved wrong but it can't be proved true. All the witnesses also can also be lying but can you prove they are not?  The robber would like you as his defense witness!

He presented EXIF data, data which can be altered. That is a fact! I don't know about all manufacturers, but Canon makes special software that does guarantee that the raw file hasn't been altered.

You're trying to compare a robber breaking into a store with a UFO? Apples to oranges.....

[ShadowBoy86x]

If its a bug, then booNyzarC a undercover us government pony trying to lead us astray from the undyin truth!!!! lol


I think its still very strong evidence, and I appreciated all the comments, for and against

Edited by JeffRobinson, 04 October 2012 - 06:45 PM.

[thewonderman]

booNyzarC, on 04 October 2012 - 06:26 PM, said:

What makes it so clear to you that it couldn't be a bug?  Did you even bother looking at the video I posted previously and comparing?







And again, I'm not saying that it definitely has to be a bug--I'm just raising the possibility because that's what it looks like to me, but when people start saying that it couldn't possibly be one I'd like to understand their reasoning.  So far all I've seen in this regard are declarations that it couldn't be one.  How useful is such a declaration with no substance behind it?

Well first off it the object clearly looks like it is behind the rock which is in front of them and I have never known a bug to be that big ever before.

Infact lets take a look at the goats head in the bottom right corner compare that to the size of the 'BUG'. OK so we can safely say its not behind the goats and infact past the rock.

Edited by thewonderman, 04 October 2012 - 06:47 PM.