4734 replies to this topic

[booNyzarC]

zoser, on 18 November 2012 - 08:11 AM, said:

R4z3rsPar4d0x, on 17 November 2012 - 10:47 PM, said:

Zoser lines them up and Boon knocks them down

No at best he does 1 in 5.  He still has Fraserburgh, Denbigh, Myrtle Beach and Yuma to solve.  4 out of 5 cases still unexplained where the footage has close similarities.

Chasing after every single case you post would be a full time job.  If our evil and secretive government paid me enough, I'd be more than happy to do just that, but unfortunately I don't have the time to debunk every single crappy UFO YouTube video that is out there.

Besides, "unexplained" is the best you'll ever get with these zoser, which does not mean "ET" as you seem to often think.

zoser, on 18 November 2012 - 08:11 AM, said:

Stan Freidman himself says that he is happy with every 90% of sightings being hoaxes or misidentifications.  He only needs 5-10% of unexplained to validate the phenomena.

PS I'm still not convinced about Okeechobee.  Just saying that the footage is crappy solves nothing and is just a peg to hang one's coat on.  It's just a get out clause.  Even when not zoomed in fully the outline is discernable as something other than a plane.  

The debate still rages and there is still much to discuss if anyone's up for it.

I'm enjoying it if everyone else is.

The phenomena is validated, people do see UFOs, and a big chunk of them will probably remain "unexplained" forever.

[zoser]

booNyzarC, on 18 November 2012 - 06:19 PM, said:

Chasing after every single case you post would be a full time job.

The point is they cannot all be debunked.

Quoth Stan Friedman:

"This earth is being engaged by extra-terrestrial beings........"

There can be no other rational conclusion.  

Mr and Mrs Brown from sleepy hollow UK have witnessed them (face to face in many cases), so have men connected with Royalty (Peter Horsely), the US military have experienced them, so have school children in Wales, Zimbabwe and Australia, as well as astronauts, the US and Soviet Navies, wood cutters in the US (Travis Walton), prospectors in Canada (Stephen Michalak), Farmers all over the US and people from just about every country in the world.

Hopefully we will not have long to wait before everyone in the world doubts it no longer.

Edited by zoser, 18 November 2012 - 06:41 PM.

[booNyzarC]

zoser, on 18 November 2012 - 06:40 PM, said:

The point is they cannot all be debunked.

Many of them can be and have been debunked, several of which you are still mystified over.  Of the ones that haven't been debunked yet, neither can they be verified as extraterrestrial.

zoser, on 18 November 2012 - 06:40 PM, said:

Quoth Stan Friedman:

"This earth is being engaged by extra-terrestrial beings........"

There can be no other rational conclusion.  

Why does something unexplained have to be extraterrestrial in your opinion?

zoser, on 18 November 2012 - 06:40 PM, said:

Mr and Mrs Brown from sleepy hollow UK have witnessed them (face to face in many cases), so have men connected with Royalty (Peter Horsely), the US military have experienced them, so have school children in Wales, Zimbabwe and Australia, as well as astronauts, the US and Soviet Navies, wood cutters in the US (Travis Walton), prospectors in Canada (Stephen Michalak), Farmers all over the US and people from just about every country in the world.

A lot of people tell stories, that doesn't make them true or factual.

zoser, on 18 November 2012 - 06:40 PM, said:

Hopefully we will not have long to wait before everyone in the world doubts it no longer.

I wouldn't hold your breath if I were you.

[zoser]

booNyzarC, on 18 November 2012 - 06:53 PM, said:

Many of them can be and have been debunked, several of which you are still mystified over.  Of the ones that haven't been debunked yet, neither can they be verified as extraterrestrial.





Why does something unexplained have to be extraterrestrial in your opinion?





A lot of people tell stories, that doesn't make them true or factual.





I wouldn't hold your breath if I were you.

Take a look at post 4311 on the previous page; what do you think it is?

Edited by zoser, 18 November 2012 - 07:00 PM.

[booNyzarC]

zoser, on 18 November 2012 - 06:59 PM, said:

Take a look at post 4311 on the previous page; what do you think it is?

Fake.

[R4z3rsPar4d0x]

booNyzarC, on 18 November 2012 - 06:19 PM, said:

Chasing after every single case you post would be a full time job.  If our evil and secretive government paid me enough, I'd be more than happy to do just that, but unfortunately I don't have the time to debunk every single crappy UFO YouTube video that is out there.

Besides, "unexplained" is the best you'll ever get with these zoser, which does not mean "ET" as you seem to often think.





The phenomena is validated, people do see UFOs, and a big chunk of them will probably remain "unexplained" forever.

I didnt mean the comment I made to be taken in a negative light

[zoser]

booNyzarC, on 18 November 2012 - 07:04 PM, said:

Fake.

You see that sounds judgemental to me.

Fake it could well be.  

On the other hand the youtube user said that it was slowed down footage so presumably this thing was travelling at some speed and just happened to be caught (just like the Crete picture).

The date is 1963.  That effect was better than MGM could achieve.  It's better than The Forbidden Planet, The Day the Earth Stood Still, etc.

The flashing lights on the tips and the canopy suggests to me that if it was a fake, someone went to an awful lot of trouble.  Then the question has to be why?  Has anyone seen that object in films?  I sincerely doubt it.

So a bit of deductive reasoning and some different type of conclusion emerges.  I'm not so sure.

[zoser]

R4z3rsPar4d0x, on 18 November 2012 - 07:11 PM, said:

I didnt mean the comment I made to be taken in a negative light

Don't worry my friend; all is well.  Christmas will be upon us and the festive season will no doubt bestow upon us a veritable feast of quality unexplainable sightings.

[booNyzarC]

zoser, on 18 November 2012 - 07:11 PM, said:

You see that sounds judgemental to me.

You asked what I think about it, that's what I think about it.

zoser, on 18 November 2012 - 07:11 PM, said:

Fake it could well be.  

Of course it is fake.  If it isn't fake, where is the rest of the footage?

zoser, on 18 November 2012 - 07:11 PM, said:

On the other hand the youtube user said that it was slowed down footage so presumably this thing was travelling at some speed and just happened to be caught (just like the Crete picture).

And you believe him?  Why?

zoser, on 18 November 2012 - 07:11 PM, said:

The date is 1963.  That effect was better than MGM could achieve.  It's better than The Forbidden Planet, The Day the Earth Stood Still, etc.

What makes you so sure it was filmed in 1963?

zoser, on 18 November 2012 - 07:11 PM, said:

The flashing lights on the tips and the canopy suggests to me that if it was a fake, someone went to an awful lot of trouble.  Then the question has to be why?  Has anyone seen that object in films?  I sincerely doubt it.

It would be pretty easy to do with today's editing tools.

zoser, on 18 November 2012 - 07:11 PM, said:

So a bit of deductive reasoning and some different type of conclusion emerges.  I'm not so sure.

What conclusion can you possibly reach from 6.8 seconds of crappy footage that some kid on YouTube claims was filmed by his grandfather in 1963?

[zoser]

booNyzarC, on 18 November 2012 - 07:21 PM, said:

You asked what I think about it, that's what I think about it.

Of course it is fake.  If it isn't fake, where is the rest of the footage?

And you believe him?  Why?

What makes you so sure it was filmed in 1963?

It would be pretty easy to do with today's editing tools.

What conclusion can you possibly reach from 6.8 seconds of crappy footage that some kid on YouTube claims was filmed by his grandfather in 1963?

So sad.  I've emailed the guy anyway.  I'll post his reply if he makes one.

[booNyzarC]

zoser, on 18 November 2012 - 07:25 PM, said:

So sad.  I've emailed the guy anyway.  I'll post his reply if he makes one.

What is sad?

[zoser]

booNyzarC, on 18 November 2012 - 07:28 PM, said:

What is sad?

Your sense of dismissal.

Never mind; I'll be back tomorrow.  Got some great cases for you to look at.  Some you've almost certainly never seen before.

Z

[Colonel Rhuairidh]

booNyzarC, on 18 November 2012 - 07:21 PM, said:

You asked what I think about it, that's what I think about it.




Of course it is fake.  If it isn't fake, where is the rest of the footage?





And you believe him?  Why?




What makes you so sure it was filmed in 1963?




It would be pretty easy to do with today's editing tools.




What conclusion can you possibly reach from 6.8 seconds of crappy footage that some kid on YouTube claims was filmed by his grandfather in 1963?

Are you sure it's not an airplane? You can distinctly make out the tail, if you look really carefully.



* This may be tongue in cheek.

[booNyzarC]

747400, on 18 November 2012 - 07:54 PM, said:

Are you sure it's not an airplane? You can distinctly make out the tail, if you look really carefully.



* This may be tongue in cheek.

Funny stuff 747

I'm still curious about your thoughts regarding this.

[DONTEATUS]

747400, on 18 November 2012 - 07:54 PM, said:

Are you sure it's not an airplane? You can distinctly make out the tail, if you look really carefully.



* This may be tongue in cheek.

Its a 747-8 Right ?