423 replies to this topic

[1963]

quillius, on 09 October 2012 - 04:03 PM, said:

Chrlz,Boon and Euphorbia,

apologies for not responding to posts a few days back, I feel any response now is 'out of date' to an extent.

I would finish my participation to say at least Chrlz has provided an argument against the analysis itself, I for one do not have the time let alone the ability to scrutinise Chrlz analysis, but hope someone with a greater knowledge does so.

I can understand why McG makes the comments he does regarding trust, in the same way a majority of skeptics did not accept the analysis of a random internet poster (mainly due to the tone being in favour of true UFO), likewise many here do not wish to take the word of another random internet poster (Chrlz, with all due respect) whos tone/outcome favours a more mundane possibilty to the object.

Overall I agree there is probably little more to be said on this photo and its down to us all to think as we will......

Excellent post!...Once again , showing yourself to be 'the voice of reason' Quillius!

Cheers buddy.

[TheMacGuffin]

badeskov, on 09 October 2012 - 11:52 PM, said:

Frankly, I couldn't care less what you believe.

But the fact of the matter is that the evidence of ET visitation is non-existent and that is the basis from which I discuss. The day when (if ever) that changes the discussion will change.

You dig at me a lot, and I'm not timid about responding, so you care that much.  What you're saying about evidence is totally false, too, although you do ignore or dismiss all of it.

[Jackofalltrades]

@ OP

To me it seem's fake.... it seem's that it was cloned into the photo (in my opinion)

Seeing as it is a clear blue sky I would of thought they would of noticed something like that in the sky at the time of taking the photo

[Slave2Fate]

TheMacGuffin, on 10 October 2012 - 12:06 AM, said:

You dig at me a lot, and I'm not timid about responding, so you care that much.  What you're saying about evidence is totally false, too, although you do ignore or dismiss all of it.

Having read enough of badeskov's posts over the years I can tell you that he only cares about how the evidence is portrayed and interpreted (as well as whether or not something constitutes as evidence in the first place). Your interpretations aren't nearly as solid as you seem to believe, hence the 'rivalry'. Your polarizing view over something as simple as a difference of opinion is telling however. With you it seems to be 'us versus them' which is practically the definition of bias. Be careful or you may become that which you rail so fervently against... if you haven't already.

[quillius]

1963, on 09 October 2012 - 11:54 PM, said:

Excellent post!...Once again , showing yourself to be 'the voice of reason' Quillius!

Cheers buddy.

Thanks 1963, although you seem to always add a nice 'balance' to any heavily one sided debates,  

[Chrlzs]

Wouldn't it be luverly if the correctness and verifiability of the information one posted was the only criteria for whether someone should be listened to..  you could even add their willingness to debate and back up their comments with cites and examples - I find that quite a good guide..


Anyone here who wishes to debate the facts and analyses, such as they stand?

And may I ask of the ufo=et crowd, who would you trust as an analyst, and why?  Do such analysts post here and properly debate their information, and if not, why not?

BTW, I'd be quite happy to go through the Ritzmann analysis point by point if anyone thinks that would help, but it seems that interest has now dropped off both here and at ATS.

[synchronomy]

Chrlzs, on 10 October 2012 - 12:03 PM, said:

Wouldn't it be luverly if the correctness and verifiability of the information one posted was the only criteria for whether someone should be listened to..  you could even add their willingness to debate and back up their comments with cites and examples - I find that quite a good guide..


Anyone here who wishes to debate the facts and analyses, such as they stand?

And may I ask of the ufo=et crowd, who would you trust as an analyst, and why?  Do such analysts post here and properly debate their information, and if not, why not?

BTW, I'd be quite happy to go through the Ritzmann analysis point by point if anyone thinks that would help, but it seems that interest has now dropped off both here and at ATS.

Personally, I feel this photo has been analyzed sufficiently to conclude it's impossible to determine what that object is.  Although I am part of the "ET crowd", I don't blindly equate UFO's to ETV's.  I keep an open mind, but it seems to me all the UFO pictures and video's I have seen over many years now are either debunked or are found to be inconclusive.

[quillius]

synchronomy, on 10 October 2012 - 01:07 PM, said:

Personally, I feel this photo has been analyzed sufficiently to conclude it's impossible to determine what that object is.  Although I am part of the "ET crowd", I don't blindly equate UFO's to ETV's.  I keep an open mind, but it seems to me all the UFO pictures and video's I have seen over many years now are either debunked or are found to be inconclusive.

I agree with the most part, and would add that any videos or pictures would always be inconclusive at least as far as scientific evidence goes

[synchronomy]

quillius, on 10 October 2012 - 01:20 PM, said:

I agree with the most part, and would add that any videos or pictures would always be inconclusive at least as far as scientific evidence goes

Within the "inconclusive" category, there's enough of them that I still think "maybe".

[quillius]

synchronomy, on 10 October 2012 - 01:41 PM, said:

Within the "inconclusive" category, there's enough of them that I still think "maybe".

that makes two of us

Edited by quillius, 10 October 2012 - 01:45 PM.

[Abramelin]

Another idea: it's a pearl inside a ring on which edge a couple of gems are set, and the whole thing as a pendant on a necklace. The only part of the necklace that's still visible (= not erased) is the shackle:




Go to Google Images, and enter:

pearl setting 'inside the ring" necklace

or:

pearl setting 'inside the ring" necklace silver


https://www.google.n...2O-mq0AW_jYGQDQ


Just AN example:



http://www.illuminat.../116/image/531/

[synchronomy]

Just for poops and chuckles I did a Google image search on a close up of the UFO in the goat picture...

I got one image of a set of keys on a blue background.

And I got 15 images of modern aircraft against a blue sky.

Conclusion:  It's a grey/blue object with bright reflections on a blue-sky background.

edit:  It seems unusual that I didn't get a return on the original image, considering I've seen it blasted all over the internet since it first appeared.

Edited by synchronomy, 10 October 2012 - 02:53 PM.

[White Unicorn]

Abramelin, on 10 October 2012 - 02:32 PM, said:

Another idea: it's a pearl inside a ring on which edge a couple of gems are set, and the whole thing as a pendant on a necklace. The only part of the necklace that's still visible (= not erased) is the shackle:




Go to Google Images, and enter:

pearl setting 'inside the ring" necklace

or:

pearl setting 'inside the ring" necklace silver


https://www.google.n...2O-mq0AW_jYGQDQ


Just AN example:



http://www.illuminat.../116/image/531/

Conclusion all UFO photos are just a pearl thrown to the swine?  LOL

[tipotep]

quillius, on 10 October 2012 - 01:45 PM, said:

that makes two of us

Better make that the 3 of us , I'm not sold on this particular item being ET , the claims for and against are all valid due to the inconclusive nature of the picture .

Im happy to say that it's a " maybe "  ( until or if more information comes to light )

TiP.

[TheMacGuffin]

Slave2Fate, on 10 October 2012 - 01:43 AM, said:

Having read enough of badeskov's posts over the years I can tell you that he only cares about how the evidence is portrayed and interpreted (as well as whether or not something constitutes as evidence in the first place).

I don't think that's true at all.  At least it's not my experience--not in any way.