423 replies to this topic

[Gamma-lunas]

It looks like a weather balloon or a paracute. I know it sounds like a cover, but look at the shape. It looks most like a paracute; you can see the brime of the paracute. It is probably collecting data and most likely has something very small underneath it which isn't seen.

It is shiny, so it attracts the attention of the goats and people.

This doesn't look paranormal to me. If it is alien, then we have things which resemble it, but there is no real reason to believe that this is anything unexplainable.

[TheMacGuffin]

Chrlzs, on 06 October 2012 - 09:49 AM, said:

I ain't Boony, so forgive me for jumping in here to clarify a couple of issues..


Yes, it is.  See above
I haven't gone through Ritzmann's initial analysis point by point,

Again, I ain't Boon, but assuming the image is genuinely untouched, my best guess is either the bug at fairly close range (NOT on the lens) or a bluish plastic shopping bag at about 15 metres (no calculations done, just a wild-a$$ed guess).  It looks an awful lot like a window chip, but I'm ~85% satisfied that the window is down..  

Well, that was a predictable conclusion from yet another unreliable source.

You should have just gone right to the punchline and saved all the baloney, since you have no more evidence for that than any of the other Septic Skeptics posting on here.

If you think that's a bug at close range or a shopping bag, you need glasses.  That's all I have to say.  Like the rest of the Septic Skeptics, you imply that the picture might be fake but you have no real proof for that either.  I am the only one here who even bothered to point out that there was a second picture, but that seemed to drive some of you bats.  After denying its existence, someone even tried to come up with yet more contrived BS "explanations" for that one.

This is really too much, but as I said, I already know which side of the UFO debate you will come down on every time, and you are light years away from being some kind of objective, unbiased observer.

Edited by TheMacGuffin, 06 October 2012 - 05:00 PM.

[blind pew]

alien goats?

[Slave2Fate]

TheMacGuffin, on 06 October 2012 - 04:43 PM, said:

Well, that was a predictable conclusion from yet another unreliable source.

You should have just gone right to the punchline and saved all the baloney, since you have no more evidence for that than any of the other Septic Skeptics posting on here.

If you think that's a bug at close range or a shopping bag, you need glasses.  That's all I have to say.  Like the rest of the Septic Skeptics, you imply that the picture might be fake but you have no real proof for that either.  I am the only one here who even bothered to point out that there was a second picture, but that seemed to drive some of you bats.  After denying its existence, someone even tried to come up with yet more contrived BS "explanations" for that one.

This is really too much, but as I said, I already know which side of the UFO debate you will come down on every time, and you are light years away from being some kind of objective, unbiased observer.

Oh yes, the second picture. The one that shows absolutely no indication of being in any way relevant. Thanks for throwing that in the mix. What was it you were saying about muddying the waters?

[DONTEATUS]

N= 305 and counting

[TheMacGuffin]

Slave2Fate, on 06 October 2012 - 05:17 PM, said:

Oh yes, the second picture. The one that shows absolutely no indication of being in any way relevant. Thanks for throwing that in the mix. What was it you were saying about muddying the waters?

It seemed very relevant to me, especially because it totally disproves everything the Septic Skeptics are saying if the UFO was also in that one, but just much farther away.

[Euphorbia]

TheMacGuffin, on 06 October 2012 - 05:30 PM, said:

It seemed very relevant to me, especially because it totally disproves everything the Septic Skeptics are saying if the UFO was also in that one, but just much farther away.

So, anybody that disagrees with you is a "Septic Skeptic"? I've never heard the term before......did you make it up all by yourself or gleam it off of the internet somewhere? Either way, with each post you make, especially with the name calling, your credibility drops further in the dumpster.......

[TheMacGuffin]

Euphorbia, on 06 October 2012 - 05:50 PM, said:

So, anybody that disagrees with you is a "Septic Skeptic"? I've never heard the term before......did you make it up all by yourself or gleam it off of the internet somewhere? Either way, with each post you make, especially with the name calling, your credibility drops further in the dumpster.......

I made it up myself, to refer to those who keep talking about bags, bugs and birds with no real evidence of any kind.

As far as the name calling goes, I always give as good as a get.

[Abramelin]

Septic Skeptic".... When you Google it, you will see this line in the results: "We exist to serve and educate."

http://www.septicskeptic.com/

[Euphorbia]

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

I made it up myself, to refer to those who keep talking about bags, bugs and birds with no real evidence of any kind.

As far as the name calling goes, I always give as good as a get.

I tend to refrain from name calling.....that's usually the last resort for those who've run out of anything useful to say. Do you have any real evidence that it's not a bag or bug? If so, please provide some from another source other than ATS.......because from what I can tell, it's just another conspiracy theorist website.....

For some reason the guy at ATS just doesn't cut it for me as he has a possible agenda of bumping up the number of hits to ATS......that and I still don't really know what training and qualifications he has.

[Euphorbia]

Abramelin, on 06 October 2012 - 06:21 PM, said:

Septic Skeptic".... When you Google it, you will see this line in the results: "We exist to serve and educate."

http://www.septicskeptic.com/

Looks like his posts could use their services....

[Abramelin]

OK, so we have two parties now: the Septic Skeptics and the Gullible Goofies.

I can do that too, you know?

[synchronomy]

Euphorbia, on 06 October 2012 - 07:06 PM, said:

Do you have any real evidence that it's not a bag or bug?

That's flawed logic...

Do you have any real evidence that it is not an extraterrestrial vehicle?

[booNyzarC]

TheMacGuffin, on 06 October 2012 - 04:43 PM, said:

Well, that was a predictable conclusion from yet another unreliable source.

You should have just gone right to the punchline and saved all the baloney, since you have no more evidence for that than any of the other Septic Skeptics posting on here.

If you think that's a bug at close range or a shopping bag, you need glasses.  That's all I have to say.  Like the rest of the Septic Skeptics, you imply that the picture might be fake but you have no real proof for that either.

Oh dear, more mention of Septic Skeptics?  Come on now McG, I was hoping that we were all turning over a new leaf and leaving that nonsense behind.

TheMacGuffin, on 06 October 2012 - 04:43 PM, said:

I am the only one here who even bothered to point out that there was a second picture, but that seemed to drive some of you bats.  After denying its existence, someone even tried to come up with yet more contrived BS "explanations" for that one.

McG, the second picture is on the very first page of the ATS thread, in the third post.  The thread had been linked several times before you mentioned the second picture.  Why are you even bringing this up as though you had uncovered the Holy Grail or something?

Who are you saying denied it's existence?

And what exactly are you calling BS explanations?

[TheMacGuffin]

Euphorbia, on 06 October 2012 - 07:06 PM, said:

I tend to refrain from name calling.....that's usually the last resort for those who've run out of anything useful to say. Do you have any real evidence that it's not a bag or bug? If so, please provide some from another source other than ATS.......because from what I can tell, it's just another conspiracy theorist website.....

For some reason the guy at ATS just doesn't cut it for me as he has a possible agenda of bumping up the number of hits to ATS......that and I still don't really know what training and qualifications he has.

They have a lot more information posted on there than any of you Septics have come up with.  Even your buddy Fritz or whatever his name is claims to be a regular on there, which I am sure is as great a joy and blessing to them as it is to us.