226 replies to this topic

[synchronomy]

booNyzarC, on 27 November 2012 - 08:21 PM, said:

No, "the bug theory" isn't ridiculous at all, you just have no idea what bugs look like in footage like this (despite having been spoon fed several comparative examples...)

If it wasn't bugs, I would think with the attention given to this case, some would have followed up with a good close-up picture of what it was since it was originally claimed to be showing up over a period of several days.
Bugs.
Reminds me of another case in which golf course maintenance vehicles were grooming a fairway at night...lol

[DieChecker]

booNyzarC, on 24 November 2012 - 09:15 PM, said:

Also of note from the article:

Quote

Luckily, there's a clear-cut way to scientifically test the bug hypothesis for anyone with enough interest to follow through, and Denver members of the social media site Reddit are already on it.

They say they plan to set two cameras a fair distance apart at the UFO-spotting site but pointed toward the same point on the horizon. If one camera records a flying object in its field of vision, but the other doesn't, it will be obvious that the object was close to the camera that recorded it.

If both cameras record an object darting around in the far distance and the citizen scientists document and report their findings thoroughly, the Denver UFO story will likely get more coverage.

That is an excellent plan. It will clearly show if these are bugs or not.

Three cameras would be even better as probably you could see the bug enter one field of view, and leave, while it is still in the 2nd cameras field of view, then leaves that camera, while still in the third cameras field of view. When you can see the bugs flying directly across the fields of the cameras then it will be obvious they are actually very close to the cameras.

The other idea, of setting two cameras far apart works just as well, but the True Believers will simply say that the UFOs were not showing up at that time, regardless of any bugs appearing on camera.

EDIT:
From the additional link (from the Reddit Link quoted above)....
http://www.reddit.co..._followup_post/

http://i.imgur.com/AZ4j6.jpg
http://i.imgur.com/LD6Df.jpg

Clearly bugs!!!

Edited by DieChecker, 27 November 2012 - 09:59 PM.

[DieChecker]

zoser, on 27 November 2012 - 08:29 PM, said:

Then please show me the capsule and cone like images from these other cases if you wouldn't mind?  Otherwise this case is not bugs it's something else.

Sorry to put a fly in the ointment

Your cone and capsule are bugs. The appearance is due to the bugs movement being faster then the frame rate of the camera. This is very well known. Reference... rods.

[booNyzarC]

I hate to say "I told ya so" zoser...  but...  nah, I really don't hate it that much at all.

Are you going to acknowledge this one as being bugs now or no?

[R4z3rsPar4d0x]

Karlis, on 09 November 2012 - 09:17 AM, said:

Here is an article of the above incident. Included are videos by the two independent cameras.

Mile High mystery: UFO sightings in sky over Denver
Source http://kdvr.com/2012...ky-over-denver/

The aviation expert couldnt identify it

[zoser]

booNyzarC, on 27 November 2012 - 10:36 PM, said:

I hate to say "I told ya so" zoser...  but...  nah, I really don't hate it that much at all.

Are you going to acknowledge this one as being bugs now or no?

Not proven by a long way; what is there to prove it?  I don't confess to have read every post on this thread but am I missing something?

Just because DC says so?

If you have some special information please provide it.

Edited by zoser, 28 November 2012 - 07:56 PM.

[DieChecker]

What would provide good proof? Hundreds of frames showing a clear insect, and then that it continues moving and ends up looking completely like the suspected UFOs? Or would that be dismissed as coincidence?

What about the two camera experiment, where the bug/UFO is recorded in one camera and not the other?

[Sweetpumper]

DieChecker, on 28 November 2012 - 09:35 PM, said:

What would provide good proof?

Apparently something that can be posted in an internet forum.

[Matt Vinyl]

Please believe me, I would love these to be real ET-based craft, like so many pics on here, but I say these are indeed close-distance flying common earth-based critters...

Edited by Matt Vinyl, 28 November 2012 - 10:06 PM.

[synchronomy]

DieChecker, on 28 November 2012 - 09:35 PM, said:

What would provide good proof? Hundreds of frames showing a clear insect, and then that it continues moving and ends up looking completely like the suspected UFOs? Or would that be dismissed as coincidence?

What about the two camera experiment, where the bug/UFO is recorded in one camera and not the other?

It seems to me that since we've not seen a rush of people in the area flock to the location to either see the object first hand or do some photography...maybe 99.99% of them think it was bugs and the .01% that believe it might be ET's are blind and don't have a camera??

[psyche101]

DieChecker, on 27 November 2012 - 09:58 PM, said:

Your cone and capsule are bugs. The appearance is due to the bugs movement being faster then the frame rate of the camera. This is very well known. Reference... rods.

Zoser still holds a torch for Joe. He believes Rods have not been adequately explained. Having the results repeated on demand, and instructions on how to create your own Rods is apparently insufficient evidence. It's a race with Zoser and Nopeda at the moment I think.

[psyche101]

zoser, on 28 November 2012 - 07:54 PM, said:

If you have some special information please provide it.

What would be the point Zoser? I have proven you blatantly wrong on so many cases it is just not funny anymore. Not once have you so much as acknowledged the information, let alone debated it. In any case you have gone so far as to respond to it, we get the same ridiculous answer as we did here on the insect. You find it "ridiculous". You found a Rocket Scientist explaining rocket science to you "sci fi" as you do the theory of camera shutter speeds on Roswell Rods. It seems if you do not understand a thing, you not only dismiss it outright, but encourage others to do so as well. More often than not, this is how you get my attention.

I would suggest that you stop spinning fabrications. You have no intention of looking further at any piece of evidence, and if it comes from a textbook, your advice is to hold a cross to the textbook and run with imagination. And then you have the audacity to tell people to research a subject, when it is blatantly clear that you avoid such like a plague. Then in the same breath as telling someone to research or study you say throw away the textbooks and run with your mind.

So why do you ask for information you will dismiss, and tell people to do research you will never discuss with them. You try to sound like an authority, but anyone familiar with your posting knows you are just a Youtube junkie. That is not research Zoser. Not at all. Your entire time here has proven one thing. You have only two answers. ET and  Testimony. If te questions does not fit your answer, they are considered invalid. You place up Youtube clip after clip, yet you have not had the decency to click and read one lousy link left for you. That's incredibly rude, and arrogant of you to demand people do things that you would not do, or ever discuss again.

The question is a genuine one. Why do you ask people to do things for you, when you have no intention of taking such any further at any stage? Why should Boon provide it? What would that accomplish? Another chance for you to regard science with disdain in a public forum? What do you get out of that?

Edited by psyche101, 29 November 2012 - 06:53 AM.

[DieChecker]

synchronomy, on 29 November 2012 - 04:49 AM, said:

It seems to me that since we've not seen a rush of people in the area flock to the location to either see the object first hand or do some photography...maybe 99.99% of them think it was bugs and the .01% that believe it might be ET's are blind and don't have a camera??

I think what I am wondering is why these alien ships are never any closer, or any further, but are explained to Always be flying directly over Denver, very fast. But, only perpendicular to where ever there is a camera apparently.

psyche101, on 29 November 2012 - 06:21 AM, said:

Zoser still holds a torch for Joe. He believes Rods have not been adequately explained. Having the results repeated on demand, and instructions on how to create your own Rods is apparently insufficient evidence. It's a race with Zoser and Nopeda at the moment I think.

HA! LOL! Racing toward what? The science of the 9th century?

Edited by DieChecker, 30 November 2012 - 01:43 AM.

[psyche101]

DieChecker, on 30 November 2012 - 01:42 AM, said:

HA! LOL! Racing toward what? The science of the 9th century?

Nah, didn't they tell you? Ancient man was no more than a chimp. Aliens did it all. I think we were invented along with the Internet or something. Only xts are capable of existing and evolving alone.

DId I ever tell you the Koala joke?

Why did the first Koala fall out of the tree??

He was Dead.

Why did the second Koala fall out of the tree??

He was dead too.

Why did the third Koala fall out of the tree??

He thought it was a new fad.

Why did the fourth Koala fall out of the tree??

The first one fell on him

Why did the fifth Koala fall out of the tree??

He thought it was a race to the bottom


And so it goes, but I thought it seemed appropriate to stop here.............................................  

[-M7]

I theorize that it must be moving at tremendous speeds to avoid detection by radar and being seen by local residents...but the aliens might have forgotten to factor someone video taping it.