423 replies to this topic

[TheMacGuffin]

And as far as I can see the car window is open, which means she didn't have a little UFO picture pasted on the glass.  I know very well that's one of the oldest tricks in the book.

[Chrlzs]

Did you really need two posts?  Although that first one was just so monumentally worthwhile -good to see you are not using ad hominems at all...

TheMacGuffin, on 04 October 2012 - 02:28 PM, said:

I've read them all, and since they couldn't prove the pictures were fake, they had to resort to calling it a bug or a bag or whatever, even though they couldn't prove any of those things either.

But you said that "None of the explanations.. explain anything at all, but of course they aren't intended to."

And yet what you just said above acknowledges that they were offering possible explanations (despite your use of insulting terms like 'had to resort to calling it ..').  I can't see many examples of people saying they were sure they were right.  Is it that you don't want anyone to say anything except what you want to hear?

Which explanations have you eliminated and how have you done that?

Quote

That's just the usual BS that the Septic Skeptics throw out in every discussion of UFOs.

So now you should explain WHY it is BS.  Answer the question above or withdraw the smarm.

Edited by Chrlzs, 04 October 2012 - 02:45 PM.

[TheMacGuffin]

Chrlzs, on 04 October 2012 - 02:45 PM, said:

Which explanations have you eliminated and how have you done that?


So now you should explain WHY it is BS.  Answer the question above or withdraw the smarm.

I have eliminated the "explanation" that the car window was closed and that there was a little UFO picture pasted on it, or a water drop or a "goat sweat".  All that is pure BS.

I have eliminated the "explanation" that the picture is a fake, since no one who analyzed it could find any evidence for that.  

I have eliminated the "explanation" that it was a bird because it doesn't look even remotely like any kind of bird.

I have eliminated the "explanation" that it was a bug on the lens of the camera because it appears to be more distant that that.

So what's left?

[TheMacGuffin]

In close up, it looks like a metallic sphere to me, mounted on some type of platform that is roughly triangular-shaped.

[Idano]

ET really keeps it's machine clean, wow look at that shine. I wonder what kind of wax they use?

[thewonderman]

I have taken a closer look at this is Photoshop CS5, Now i'm not photo expert but to me it looks clearly like their is a light or source of enegry ommiting from the back of the craft you can see this clearly in various formats.

So I think its either a craft of some type or the picture has been hoaxed as some effects it looks like it has been blended in compared to the other objects on the photo. I can post pictures if need be.

[TheMacGuffin]

And here is the raw image as it came out of the camera.




http://www.facebook....&type=1

[Chrlzs]

TheMacGuffin, on 04 October 2012 - 02:49 PM, said:

I have eliminated the "explanation" that the car window was closed and that there was a little UFO picture pasted on it, or a water drop or a "goat sweat".  All that is pure BS.
I have eliminated the "explanation" that the picture is a fake, since no one who analyzed it could find any evidence for that.

I beg your pardon?  Even over at ATS, respondents have correctly pointed out that it is almost trivially easy to fake exif or add to a picture without trace.  It is ONLY in very precise circumstances and with the ability to forensically examine the original media (which no-one at ATS has done in any transparent fashion) that such fakery can be ruled out.  Your 'elimination' is based on a complete lack of knowledge.

So that 'elimination' is eliminated.

Quote

I have eliminated the "explanation" that it was a bird because it doesn't look even remotely like any kind of bird.

Oh, very scientific - are your arms tired from that handwave?   Just because you haven't seen a bird look like that in a digital image, it can't possibly be one.  Can you show me a good collection of bird photography you have done?  Do you understand how electronic shutters work?  Here's a challenge for you - tell us WHY I mention that aspect.  If you don't know (good luck googling something up), then it proves again that you are out of your depth.  I'll be happy to elaborate later - but you go first, MacG.

Another 'elimination' based on lack of knowledge of the topic.

Quote

I have eliminated the "explanation" that it was a bug on the lens of the camera because it appears to be more distant that that.

A bug on the lens???  Who is claiming that but you?  I see several folks discussing a FLYING bug, even some examples.  Why did you deliberately misrepresent what was said?  Another ridiculous 'elimination', and your use of a strawman is on show for all to see.  

Quote

So what's left?

Well, quite aside from the points I made above, there's your rather glaring omission of the wind-blown plastic bag..  Did you just miss that one, or simply decide you'd rather not bring it up?

I think the origin of the septic information is now very clear indeed...

[TheMacGuffin]

And if you look closely at this picture, you can see where she might have gotten a second picture of the UFO as it moved off in the distance.  This one was posted on ATS but not yet on here.

[Chrlzs]

{double post removed}

Edited by Chrlzs, 04 October 2012 - 03:19 PM.

[Chrlzs]

TheMacGuffin, on 04 October 2012 - 03:04 PM, said:

And here is the raw image as it came out of the camera.

THAT IS NOT THE ORIGINAL RAW FILE - it even says so on the page linked.  It's a reduced and post-processed JPEG.

[TheMacGuffin]

Chrlzs, on 04 October 2012 - 03:08 PM, said:

I beg your pardon?  Even over at ATS, respondents have correctly pointed out that it is almost trivially easy to fake exif or add to a picture without trace.  It is ONLY in very precise circumstances and with the ability to forensically examine the original media (which no-one at ATS has done in any transparent fashion) that such fakery can be ruled out.  Your 'elimination' is based on a complete lack of knowledge.

I think the origin of the septic information is now very clear indeed...

No, you have not eliminated anything because you can supply no proof at all that the picture is fake, or that it is anything other that what is shown on the original image in the camera, which I have posted here and you did not.  I think that little "omission" eliminates you completely.

You also didn't mention that she may have gotten a second image of the UFO.  Why didn't you tell them about that?  

Maybe you like this picture, though.  LOL




Another example of Septic Skepticism to add to the list--a VERY long list indeed.

[TheMacGuffin]

Chrlzs, on 04 October 2012 - 03:16 PM, said:

THAT IS NOT THE ORIGINAL RAW FILE - it even says so on the page linked.  It's a reduced and post-processed JPEG.

No?  Then why does he say this?

"Thanks to Mark Allin from abovetopsecret.com for emailing me the raw file of this. I've only used some minimum level adjustment, and a very slight color adjustment to bring out details of the object. Other than that, the image is untouched, exactly as it came out of the photographer's camera. I'm posting it here so that I can link to it from the discussion board at abovetopsecret.com
Go directly to their website (linked above) for the full story."

I can read that just as well as you can.  Are you saying that he's lying?  Prove it.


http://www.facebook....&type=1

[thewonderman]

3 things this comes down to.

1. UFO some type of craft ethier ET or one of ours(doubtful)
2. Blue Plastic Bag (Why the white light ? or eluminating light ? )
3. Fake Picture.( everything is pointing towards it being real, but you never know! )

So we have 3 options left and we need to narrow it down to 1, c'mon guys almost their!

[Slave2Fate]

TheMacGuffin, on 04 October 2012 - 03:17 PM, said:

No, you have not eliminated anything because you can supply no proof at all that the picture is fake, or that it is anything other that what is shown on the original image in the camera, which I have posted here and you did not.  I think that little "omission" eliminates you completely.

You also didn't mention that she may have gotten a second image of the UFO.  Why didn't you tell them about that?  

Maybe you like this picture, though.  LOL




Another example of Septic Skepticism to add to the list--a VERY long list indeed.

You seem a bit upset that some people might actually be trying to figure out what this thing was. As long as they're saying it's aliens then it's ok right? Of course. Your anti-skeptic rhetoric and white knuckle grip on the ETH is only allowing you to see black and white. It's never so simple as that..