423 replies to this topic

[Sweetpumper]

Euphorbia, on 04 October 2012 - 09:19 PM, said:

No, it's not certain....at least not in the way you're thinking. Can you say with absolute certainty that it's not a plastic bag.....or an insect? If so, how?

Because it was posted on a UFO website, not a grocery store website or insect website.

Edited by Sweetpumper, 04 October 2012 - 09:25 PM.

[White Unicorn]

Sweetpumper, on 04 October 2012 - 08:46 PM, said:

It is over water. It could have just flown out. USO?

This is another theory as to why UFOs seen about our active military operations would have such a genuine concern about our weapon systems and how we are using them.

[Euphorbia]

thewonderman, on 04 October 2012 - 09:12 PM, said:

Its clearly not a plastic bag or bug, no one can explain it so that means wolla its a 'UFO'.

The person who has provided the analysis states the object was some distance from the shooter so this rules out those two possabilitys, we can't be 100% sure he is correct but I would love for you to prove him wrong and provide your plastic bag theory.

I would love for you to prove him correct! I don't have to "state my theory', I've never stated what it is or isn't......just that we don't know and that we can't necessarily rely on this man's analysis as proof of anything.....

[booNyzarC]

TheMacGuffin, on 04 October 2012 - 08:20 PM, said:

You invariably have a snappy little comeback no matter what, but once again you "forgot" to mention everything he said:

"Overall, the object does exhibit atmospheric haze one would expect to see in a solid object of some distance away - note the existing weather and atmospheric effects in the rest of the photo. The UO appears for all intent and purposes to this examiner as highly reflective, and "chrome-like", as it appears to be reflecting it's surrounding environment. However, the darkest areas are effected by atmospheric haze which soften this "chromic" effect. While the reflective quality seems quite prominent, it would be even more so without the hazing environmental effects of distance."


The photo exhibits:
-atmospheric distance haze consistent with the rest of the photo which indicates an object of some distance from the shooter
-channel specific data relating to the UO - one cannot overemphasize this point
-appropriate lighting, and shadows consistent with the rest of the photo
-accurate focus in relation to stationary objects
-clean and unfettered EXIF data, and files obtained directly from the camera
-correct pixelation across the image


http://www.abovetops...hread886584/pg1

Do you expect me to quote him in full every time I reference a specific point?  Did YOU quote him in full right here?  Have you EVER quoted him in full?

For example, had you EVER quoted the section that I quoted showing that he couldn't determine the distance?  No, you hadn't.  I don't really care that you hadn't, I'm just pointing out that you accusing me of supposedly doing something nefarious when you yourself are guilty of not quoting in full is ridiculous.  This is the kind of character assassination technique that I've come to expect from you.  I wish that some day you would prove this expectation wrong by dropping your disgruntled and bitter attitude for a while.

At any rate, back to the points.

Please show me where he has ruled out that it could be an insect.  If he has, I haven't seen it, and you've stated that he did so.  Supposing he has, if his reasoning is as meaningless to how he 'ruled out a bird' then that leaves us with it still being a possible explanation.  That being said, I don't personally lean very heavily toward the bird explanation myself.

[booNyzarC]

Sweetpumper, on 04 October 2012 - 08:46 PM, said:

It is over water. It could have just flown out. USO?

Question for you Sweetpumper.  How can you be certain that it is over water?

[Euphorbia]

synchronomy, on 04 October 2012 - 09:22 PM, said:

Ok...you need to know this.
UFO means Unidentified Flying Object, and that's exactly what this is.
You are confusing it with ETV which is Extraterrestrial Vehicle.
UFO does not automatically mean it's of extraterrestrial origin.

Some UFO's could be ETV's.
Any object flying through the air that you cannot identify is a UFO.

I know what UFO means, but do you even have proof that it is flying? Plastic bags float....they don't fly. Or are you going to tell me it can also mean "Unidentified Floating Object"?

Again, this may or may not be a UFO....we have insufficient evidence!

[WhyDontYouBeliEveMe]

i didnt take the time to read.. what others . are saying about this pic .. because i alrdy know what they are saying.. about it ..      but wow what a nice pic    i love it and i believe its an ufo

[Euphorbia]

Sweetpumper, on 04 October 2012 - 09:22 PM, said:

Because it was posted on a UFO website, not a grocery store website or insect website.

I smell bias!

[booNyzarC]

TheMacGuffin, on 04 October 2012 - 04:00 PM, said:

If you enlarge this picture and zoom in on the right, above the bush, some people claim that they can discern the UFO moving off into the distance.  Given that there were five seconds between each picture, that would mean that it was moving along at a high velocity.  

I see several such small blurry things in this image.





Maybe they just need to wash the windshield?  It does look like pretty dusty driving...  Maybe they are bugs or something else?  Oh I know...  maybe it's a fleet!  

[White Unicorn]

booNyzarC, on 04 October 2012 - 10:16 PM, said:

I see several such small blurry things in this image.





Maybe they just need to wash the windshield?  It does look like pretty dusty driving...  Maybe they are bugs or something else?  Oh I know...  maybe it's a fleet!  

Only takes one in the right place excluding the bugs or spots to be an additional clue to follow ....not a fleet LOL

[booNyzarC]

White Unicorn, on 04 October 2012 - 10:28 PM, said:

Only takes one in the right place excluding the bugs or spots to be an additional clue to follow ....not a fleet LOL

Indeed, but how do you know whether it is a valid clue to follow in the first place?  That's the thing.  Any of those could be ET piloted space ships in the distance couldn't they?  Or maybe conventional aircraft in the distance?  Likewise, any could just be smudges of dust on the windshield, right?  Or even bugs flying by relatively close?

[Euphorbia]

booNyzarC, on 04 October 2012 - 10:33 PM, said:

Indeed, but how do you know whether it is a valid clue to follow in the first place?  That's the thing.  Any of those could be ET piloted space ships in the distance couldn't they?  Or maybe conventional aircraft in the distance?  Likewise, any could just be smudges of dust on the windshield, right?  Or even bugs flying by relatively close?

Or dust spots on the sensor.....

[White Unicorn]

Euphorbia, on 04 October 2012 - 10:38 PM, said:

Or dust spots on the sensor.....

That's why we have the very skeptical debunkers who save the rest of us a lot of work

[TheMacGuffin]

booNyzarC, on 04 October 2012 - 09:29 PM, said:

This is the kind of character assassination technique that I've come to expect from you.  I wish that some day you would prove this expectation wrong by dropping your disgruntled and bitter attitude for a while.

Why don't you just go take an aspirin or something?

[TheMacGuffin]

booNyzarC, on 04 October 2012 - 10:16 PM, said:

I see several such small blurry things in this image.

Maybe they just need to wash the windshield?  It does look like pretty dusty driving...  Maybe they are bugs or something else?  Oh I know...  maybe it's a fleet!  

I don't see them.  Maybe you should just wash your computer screen every few years.