zoser, 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."
zoser, 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.
zoser, 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?
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!
zoser, 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?
zoser, 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?
zoser, 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.
zoser, 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?
zoser, 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?
zoser, 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?
6
