Jump to content




Welcome to Unexplained Mysteries! Please sign in or create an account to start posting and to access a host of extra features.


* * * - - 12 votes

Tantalising Testimony


  • Please log in to reply
5542 replies to this topic

#4396    S2F

S2F

    Bloodstained Hurricane

  • Member
  • 7,321 posts
  • Joined:22 May 2008
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Right behind you!

  • I know someday
    you'll have a beautiful life
    I know you'll be a sun
    In somebody else's sky
    But why can't it be mine? -Pearl Jam

Posted 25 November 2012 - 09:50 AM

View Post747400, on 25 November 2012 - 09:26 AM, said:

I'm not trying to say it must be Aliens. I'm just trying to consider the "plausible" explanations reasonably, and the Hoax theory is nearly always, in any case except a simple one where it's just a photo or video, almost invariably one of the most complicated explanations. this isn't just a case of one or two photos or videos, after all, it seemed to go on for longer than that and there were other witnesses. Really, if one was trying to put forward the ET explanation, that would actually be much more straightforward; (leaving aside questions of 'how did they get here over the vast distances of space' and so on); that somethig might have been some sort of craft that didn't necessarily come from this planet. The 'Hoax' theory, like many other of the "rational" explanations that are put forward for various cases, often seem to be Ockham's or Occam's razor in reverse; it couldn't possibly be a reasonably simple explanation and it must be something very much more complicated.
:unsure2:

Therein is the problem. The ETH has been somehow relegated to a 'simple' answer when the truth is that the ETH glosses over or outright ignores several factors that complicate the theory a hundredfold. It quite literally raises many, many more questions than it answers.

"You want to discuss plausibility then you have to accept reality." -Mattshark

"Don't argue with an idiot. They'll drag you down to their level then beat you with experience." -Obviousman

You know... the plural of ``anecdote'' is not ``data''. Similarly, the plural of ``random fact'' is not ``mystical symbolism''. -sepulchrave


#4397    S2F

S2F

    Bloodstained Hurricane

  • Member
  • 7,321 posts
  • Joined:22 May 2008
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Right behind you!

  • I know someday
    you'll have a beautiful life
    I know you'll be a sun
    In somebody else's sky
    But why can't it be mine? -Pearl Jam

Posted 25 November 2012 - 09:58 AM

View Postzoser, on 25 November 2012 - 09:45 AM, said:

Psychology is a fascinating thing.

Indeed, so is irony.

"You want to discuss plausibility then you have to accept reality." -Mattshark

"Don't argue with an idiot. They'll drag you down to their level then beat you with experience." -Obviousman

You know... the plural of ``anecdote'' is not ``data''. Similarly, the plural of ``random fact'' is not ``mystical symbolism''. -sepulchrave


#4398    zoser

zoser

    Sapphire

  • Member
  • 10,009 posts
  • Joined:19 Aug 2009
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:London UK

  • It is later than you think.

Posted 25 November 2012 - 10:18 AM

View PostSlave2Fate, on 25 November 2012 - 09:58 AM, said:

Indeed, so is irony.

I'm also wondering (objectively) if part of the problem is the idea that 'because we can't achieve it, neither can they'.

In other words a refusal to believe that another race has superior technology.  I'm not having a go at anyone here, just interested in the reasons.  It's interesting that the hard core skeptics here seem to be staunch advocates of the infallibility of modern ideas.

Just a thought.

Posted Image


#4399    ChrLzs

ChrLzs

    Just a contributor..

  • Member
  • 5,342 posts
  • Joined:21 Nov 2009
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Gold Coast (Qld, Australia)

  • I only floccinaucinihilipilificate
    when it IS worthless...

Posted 25 November 2012 - 11:08 AM

View Postzoser, on 25 November 2012 - 09:47 AM, said:

Chris this is just a waste of a post.  It offers nothing.

Then REPORT the post, rather than waste MORE time posting contentless complaints and avoiding the questions, namely:

1. What is the known ET craft you refer to?
2. Did you read any of the links I supplied?
3. What other witnesses were there, and what evidence have they provided?
4. Was any mention made of Leir when the 09 video was first presented?

And how many times do you have to be told it is ChrLz - that's fonetic for ... Charles..?

There are answers out there, and they won't be found by people sitting around looking serious and saying 'Isn't life mysterious?' - Tim Minchin ('Storm')
My garden is already magical and beyond beautiful - I do not need to invent fairies... - me
The truth ONLY hurts when it slaps you in the face after you haven't done proper homework and made silly claims... - me

#4400    Otto von Pickelhaube

Otto von Pickelhaube

    A complete moral vacuum

  • Member
  • 30,148 posts
  • Joined:09 May 2005
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Garmisch-Partenkirchen

  • Vampires are people too.

Posted 25 November 2012 - 11:34 AM

If we're talking about John Leir, the alien implant expert :unsure2: , (and someone with a name remarkably similar to other well known UFO 'Experts'), if he was not actually involved in the case from the beginning and only jumped aboard at a later date, that might perhaps be a point in favour of its credibility ....

If, as it seems, we are in the process of becoming a totalitarian society in which the state apparatus is all-powerful, the ethics most important for the survival of the true, free, human individual would be: cheat, lie, evade, fake it, be elsewhere, forge documents, build improved electronic gadgets in your garage that’ll outwit the gadgets used by the authorities.

- Philip K. Dick.


#4401    Otto von Pickelhaube

Otto von Pickelhaube

    A complete moral vacuum

  • Member
  • 30,148 posts
  • Joined:09 May 2005
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Garmisch-Partenkirchen

  • Vampires are people too.

Posted 25 November 2012 - 11:34 AM

If we're talking about John Leir, the alien implant expert :unsure2: , (and someone with a name remarkably similar to other well known UFO 'Experts'), if he was not actually involved in the case from the beginning and only jumped aboard at a later date, that might perhaps be a point in favour of its credibility ....

If, as it seems, we are in the process of becoming a totalitarian society in which the state apparatus is all-powerful, the ethics most important for the survival of the true, free, human individual would be: cheat, lie, evade, fake it, be elsewhere, forge documents, build improved electronic gadgets in your garage that’ll outwit the gadgets used by the authorities.

- Philip K. Dick.


#4402    ChrLzs

ChrLzs

    Just a contributor..

  • Member
  • 5,342 posts
  • Joined:21 Nov 2009
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Gold Coast (Qld, Australia)

  • I only floccinaucinihilipilificate
    when it IS worthless...

Posted 25 November 2012 - 11:37 AM

View Postzoser, on 25 November 2012 - 10:18 AM, said:

In other words a refusal to believe that another race has superior technology.  I'm not having a go at anyone here
Oh no, of course you arent... :td:

NOT once has anyone here said or implied that.  You have manipulatively changed the argument from whether particular cases are only explainable by the ETH, to one where you try to put down others by making the completely FALSE claim that they 'refuse to believe that another race has superior technology'.

That sort of strawman tactic is, frankly, disgraceful.


747400 - nice observation!  You may well be right...

There are answers out there, and they won't be found by people sitting around looking serious and saying 'Isn't life mysterious?' - Tim Minchin ('Storm')
My garden is already magical and beyond beautiful - I do not need to invent fairies... - me
The truth ONLY hurts when it slaps you in the face after you haven't done proper homework and made silly claims... - me

#4403    zoser

zoser

    Sapphire

  • Member
  • 10,009 posts
  • Joined:19 Aug 2009
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:London UK

  • It is later than you think.

Posted 25 November 2012 - 01:12 PM

View PostChrlzs, on 25 November 2012 - 11:37 AM, said:


That sort of strawman tactic is, frankly, disgraceful.


So is outright denial.

I'm not getting into a slanging match with you Chris, so this is probably my last response to you on this subject.

I was merely trying to understand the psychology involved given that there appears to be an unbridgeable gulf in viewpoints.

Posted Image


#4404    synchronomy

synchronomy

    Psychic Spy

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,124 posts
  • Joined:05 Mar 2009
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Ontario Canada

  • Facinating

Posted 25 November 2012 - 03:52 PM

View Post747400, on 25 November 2012 - 11:34 AM, said:

If we're talking about John Leir, the alien implant expert :unsure2: , (and someone with a name remarkably similar to other well known UFO 'Experts'), if he was not actually involved in the case from the beginning and only jumped aboard at a later date, that might perhaps be a point in favour of its credibility ....
I believe it is more likely, that since this case had "done the rounds" with debunkers, and Leir was satisfied that it still remained a money-maker, he then decided to put it on his "band wagon".  He has added it as a feather in his cap and done radio and conference talks about it.
Internet hits = revenue.

At the heart of science is an essential balance between two seemingly contradictory attitudes--an openness to new ideas, no matter how bizarre or counterintuitive they may be, and the most ruthless skeptical scrutiny of all ideas, old and new.
This is how deep truths are winnowed from deep nonsense. -- Carl Sagan

#4405    synchronomy

synchronomy

    Psychic Spy

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,124 posts
  • Joined:05 Mar 2009
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Ontario Canada

  • Facinating

Posted 25 November 2012 - 04:14 PM

View Postzoser, on 25 November 2012 - 08:06 AM, said:

Let me make the question simpler; what is it?

You have all commented and had a go at debunking it, and come up with nothing.

It looks like an ET craft and it is an ET craft; witnesses, filmed and confirmed.  No amount of boat or aircraft pictures is going to solve this one.  This is ET evidence first class and I'm not going to be afraid of censure for saying so.

If the skeptics want to try and debunk it, it needs careful examination of the footage and the witnesses and an alternative case put forward.
I'm not a skeptic, but I find this case has absolutely NOTHING about it that should point to the ETH.  The fact that no one has been able to prove that it is a hoax, does not increase the likelihood that it is ET related.
To me, it simply looks like it could be a ship in the distance.  It's not even doing any aerial manoevres that would exclude it from being terrestrial aircraft, such as high speed 90 degree turns.  It's just staying put.
The fact that no one has been able to prove that it is a hoax, does not increase the likelihood that it is ET related.
The fact that no one has been able to prove that it is a hoax, does not increase the likelihood that it is ET related.
The fact that no one has been able to prove that it is a hoax, does not increase the likelihood that it is ET related.
The fact that no one has been able to prove that it is a hoax, does not increase the likelihood that it is ET related.
....that is the only fact that can be drawn from this case.
This looks to me like it is possibly the illuminated bridge of a ship:
Posted Image
And using 200x zoom coupled with Lord knows how much digital zoom, then who know what else...we are to conclude that this is the co-pilot of an ETV wearing a blue shirt!
Posted Image

Edited by synchronomy, 25 November 2012 - 04:21 PM.

At the heart of science is an essential balance between two seemingly contradictory attitudes--an openness to new ideas, no matter how bizarre or counterintuitive they may be, and the most ruthless skeptical scrutiny of all ideas, old and new.
This is how deep truths are winnowed from deep nonsense. -- Carl Sagan

#4406    booNyzarC

booNyzarC

    Forum Divinity

  • Closed
  • 13,536 posts
  • Joined:18 Aug 2010
  • Gender:Not Selected

Posted 25 November 2012 - 04:18 PM

View Postzoser, on 25 November 2012 - 08:06 AM, said:

Let me make the question simpler; what is it?

You have all commented and had a go at debunking it, and come up with nothing.

Examining something like this requires the application of scrutiny.  How much scrutiny have you applied to this or any other case zoser?

If you have a look at the definition on the other end of that link, you'll find that scrutiny does not mean "accept every alien claim at face value and willfully ignore any and all prosaic possibilities."



View Postzoser, on 25 November 2012 - 08:06 AM, said:

It looks like an ET craft and it is an ET craft; witnesses, filmed and confirmed.

How did you determine that it looks like or is an ET craft?  How did the witnesses and film confirm that it is an ET craft?

These are valid and important questions, and they are essentially the point behind Chrlzs' request for the example of another known ET craft that you are using to make the comparison and therefore determination that this footage is a match.



View Postzoser, on 25 November 2012 - 08:06 AM, said:

No amount of boat or aircraft pictures is going to solve this one.

Let's not introduce aircraft pictures here.  There is no indication that the objects filmed are even flying, so why even bring it up?

As for boat pictures, why would this possible explanation NOT be worthy of consideration?  The objects filmed are right along the horizon, on or just above the sea line, in an area with a great deal of boat traffic.

How do these comparisons not at least give you pause before dismissing this potential explanation for at least some of the footage?

Posted ImagePosted Image


I know that you've had difficulty in the past with seeing similarities between images even when those similarities are textually described, but once the picture is put in front of you I don't see how you can miss the similarities when they are so blatant and obvious.  A prime example is your failure to recognize that O'Hare photo hoax.

Your denial of the obvious started with post # 3546, was drawn out for you in post # 3558, though you quickly dismissed that with the claim that the original might be the actual hoax, and ultimately culminated around post # 3624 when you finally seemed to accept the explanation and how your attempted hand-wave claim that the original photo was actually the hoaxed photo didn't work.  Explaining and describing these things for you reminds me of teaching a child simple addition and subtraction by counting pebbles or beans.

What is 10 minus 4?  Start with a pile of 10 beans, count them out to be sure.  One, two, three, four, five, six, seven, eight, nine, ten.  Good.  Now take 4 beans from the first pile and make a new pile, count them out as you go.  One, two, three, four.  Good.  Now go back to the original pile and count how many are left.  One, two, three, four, five, six.  Good.  So 10 minus 4 equals 6.  Excellent job!



View Postzoser, on 25 November 2012 - 08:06 AM, said:

This is ET evidence first class and I'm not going to be afraid of censure for saying so.

If the skeptics want to try and debunk it, it needs careful examination of the footage and the witnesses and an alternative case put forward.

What makes this first class ET evidence zoser?  How is it that you are so easily convinced that this is footage of an extraterrestrial vehicle of some kind?  Please be specific about why this couldn't be anything else?



View Postzoser, on 25 November 2012 - 08:52 AM, said:

There's too much footage for a start; even the top portion of a cruise ship doesn't resemble what is seen.

How does the quantity of footage factor into concluding that it is an ET vehicle?  How do the above animated GIF's from my previous Linky Dinky 1 NOT resemble the footage?

The bigger question you should ask yourself is why, if this was happening regularly over a period of days, months, and years, did nobody ever make an effort to collect footage from different angles and distances?  Why didn't anyone ever come up with a plan to hop into a boat and sail out toward the "object" once it again appeared?  Why not create a team of folks, one stationed on the pier to continue filming, and other groups drive up the coastline for a closer look?  Why not employ a helicopter to fly out there?

Also ask yourself why we never see any footage of this "object" coming or going?  Always, always, always it is just sitting there out on the horizon just like a boat or ship would do.  If this is an alien vehicle, why don't we see it fly in or fly away?



View Postzoser, on 25 November 2012 - 08:52 AM, said:

Don't forget that there is the zoomed out images showing the row of 4 lights.

How do you know that the 4 lights are even linked to the night footage?  The lights don't even form the same shape as the "objects" from the night footage.  What kind of alien vehicle keeps its lights off at night only to turn them on for a foggy morning?

Come on zoser.  Use some of that scrutiny that was mentioned.

Speaking of those 4 lights, how do we know how high above the horizon they actually were?  They were filmed through some kind of fog, which can create mirage effects.  Here is a PDF that was linked by BMK in a previous thread about this footage discussing this that you or others may find of value.  Atmospheric conditions like those present that morning can have a direct impact on optics.  There are other similar examples of this provided in that ATS thread that Chrlzs linked you to earlier as well.



View Postzoser, on 25 November 2012 - 08:52 AM, said:

Then there are the witnesses to deal with; and they have to be dealt with for any debunking case to stand up.

What witnesses?  Can you kindly list out the witnesses, exactly which date(s) and time(s) they saw something, from exactly where they were when they saw it, and provide detailed verbatim quotations of their tantalizing testimonies?



View Postzoser, on 25 November 2012 - 08:52 AM, said:

Then finally there is the analysis that has been carried out; is it likely that the analysis forgot to examine the cruise ship theory?  Hardly likely since that area is popular with such craft.

Has it ever occurred to you that the analyses carried out might have intentionally ignored possible prosaic explanations if their purpose may have been to support something they knew to be a hoax, and that they may have done so for the purposes of personal financial gain?  I know that you don't want to accuse anyone of possible wrong doing or dishonesty, which is admirable in a sense, but isn't it naive to ignore this possibility?  Despite your preference to assume the best in people (unless they are skeptical of the ETH of course...) wouldn't it be prudent to at least consider the chance that some folks might attempt to commit hoaxes for these and other reasons?

How about in situations not related to UFOlogy?  Do you apply scrutiny and are you wary of claims made in medical and financial fields?  If someone comes to you with an incredible investment opportunity promising untold riches, do you take them at their word or do you take a step back and scrutinize their claims with skepticism?  If you apply scrutiny in this kind of situation, why would you not apply it in relation to UFOlogy?



View Postzoser, on 25 November 2012 - 08:52 AM, said:

Debunking attempts can be as creative as the Mona Lisa; if what we are looking at is genuine it makes little difference.

Yes, debunking attempts often require creativity, but that is all part of trying to understand what we're actually seeing instead of jumping to a preferred conclusion without testing the claims put forward.  If what we are looking at is genuine, what makes it so?  How can we be certain that this is an ET craft of some kind?  What questions can YOU come up with to test that hypothesis?


#4407    Otto von Pickelhaube

Otto von Pickelhaube

    A complete moral vacuum

  • Member
  • 30,148 posts
  • Joined:09 May 2005
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Garmisch-Partenkirchen

  • Vampires are people too.

Posted 25 November 2012 - 04:21 PM

View Postsynchronomy, on 25 November 2012 - 04:14 PM, said:

I'm not a skeptic, but I find this case has absolutely NOTHING about it that should point to the ETH.  The fact that no one has been able to prove that it is a hoax, does not increase the likelihood that it is ET related.
To me, it simply looks like it could be a ship in the distance.  It's not even doing any aerial manoevres that would exclude it from being terrestrial aircraft, such as high speed 90 degree turns.  It's just staying put.
The fact that no one has been able to prove that it is a hoax, does not increase the likelihood that it is ET related.
The fact that no one has been able to prove that it is a hoax, does not increase the likelihood that it is ET related.
The fact that no one has been able to prove that it is a hoax, does not increase the likelihood that it is ET related.
The fact that no one has been able to prove that it is a hoax, does not increase the likelihood that it is ET related.
....that is the only fact that can be drawn from this case.
This looks to me like it is possibly the illuminated bridge of a ship:
Posted Image
And using 200x zoom coupled with Lord knows how much digital zoom, then who know what else...we are to conclude that this is the co-pilot of an ETV wearing a blue shirt!
Posted Image
Looking at those stills there, I really donot think that it does look like a ship in the distance, I really have to say. :-/  It certainly isn't a Cruise ship, and while it might conceivably be the deck lights of a trawler, it really doesn't look to me very much like that that either, since there doesn't seem to be any structure of a ship visible behind it, and no navigation/steaming lights visible.

If, as it seems, we are in the process of becoming a totalitarian society in which the state apparatus is all-powerful, the ethics most important for the survival of the true, free, human individual would be: cheat, lie, evade, fake it, be elsewhere, forge documents, build improved electronic gadgets in your garage that’ll outwit the gadgets used by the authorities.

- Philip K. Dick.


#4408    zoser

zoser

    Sapphire

  • Member
  • 10,009 posts
  • Joined:19 Aug 2009
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:London UK

  • It is later than you think.

Posted 25 November 2012 - 04:28 PM

View Post747400, on 25 November 2012 - 04:21 PM, said:

Looking at those stills there, I really donot think that it does look like a ship in the distance, I really have to say. :-/  It certainly isn't a Cruise ship, and while it might conceivably be the deck lights of a trawler, it really doesn't look to me very much like that that either, since there doesn't seem to be any structure of a ship visible behind it, and no navigation/steaming lights visible.

I agree with you totally; everywhere you look on the web the same story emerges; that this footage has been examined by many experts and is widely deemed genuine:

For example take a look at this clip.  Start from 5:15 an you see the camera man zoom in on a point of light.  The moon is clearly visible.  He does this a couple of times.  People have complained that there is no frame of reference.  That is untrue.



Also for those that want a condensed history of the case here is an excellent link.  It explains that there are two main pieces of footage; one in 2008 and another in 2009.

http://chadlewis.pro...lay&thread=1778

Edited by zoser, 25 November 2012 - 04:29 PM.

Posted Image


#4409    zoser

zoser

    Sapphire

  • Member
  • 10,009 posts
  • Joined:19 Aug 2009
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:London UK

  • It is later than you think.

Posted 25 November 2012 - 04:36 PM

View Postsynchronomy, on 25 November 2012 - 04:14 PM, said:

I'm not a skeptic, but I find this case has absolutely NOTHING about it that should point to the ETH.  The fact that no one has been able to prove that it is a hoax, does not increase the likelihood that it is ET related.
To me, it simply looks like it could be a ship in the distance.  It's not even doing any aerial manoevres that would exclude it from being terrestrial aircraft, such as high speed 90 degree turns.  It's just staying put.
The fact that no one has been able to prove that it is a hoax, does not increase the likelihood that it is ET related.
The fact that no one has been able to prove that it is a hoax, does not increase the likelihood that it is ET related.
The fact that no one has been able to prove that it is a hoax, does not increase the likelihood that it is ET related.
The fact that no one has been able to prove that it is a hoax, does not increase the likelihood that it is ET related.
....that is the only fact that can be drawn from this case.
This looks to me like it is possibly the illuminated bridge of a ship:

And using 200x zoom coupled with Lord knows how much digital zoom, then who know what else...we are to conclude that this is the co-pilot of an ETV wearing a blue shirt!


Why shouldn't it stay put?  A large number of unidentified objects appear to hover in the sky.  Why not this one?  Check out the link in the above post and read the history of the case.  This one is as tight as a drum.

Posted Image


#4410    synchronomy

synchronomy

    Psychic Spy

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,124 posts
  • Joined:05 Mar 2009
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Ontario Canada

  • Facinating

Posted 25 November 2012 - 04:36 PM

View Post747400, on 25 November 2012 - 04:21 PM, said:

Looking at those stills there, I really donot think that it does look like a ship in the distance, I really have to say. :-/  It certainly isn't a Cruise ship, and while it might conceivably be the deck lights of a trawler, it really doesn't look to me very much like that that either, since there doesn't seem to be any structure of a ship visible behind it, and no navigation/steaming lights visible.
Ships come in a huge variety of shapes and sizes with a limitless variety or deck and bridge lights.  Of course there's no structure of the ship visible because it would have less illumination than the lights.  Digital cameras are often ***** under such circumstances.  Also, using spectacular zoom through many miles of haze and/or fog further negates any detail.
I said it's possibly a ship.
Also, I edited my post since you quoted it.  The second picture is now what I intended in the first place.

At the heart of science is an essential balance between two seemingly contradictory attitudes--an openness to new ideas, no matter how bizarre or counterintuitive they may be, and the most ruthless skeptical scrutiny of all ideas, old and new.
This is how deep truths are winnowed from deep nonsense. -- Carl Sagan




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users