Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 4
ShadowBoy86x

Anyone seen this picture?

424 posts in this topic

Who has assumed that Euphorbia ?...Can't say that i've seen that opinion stated anywhere on this thread!

....Only the refusal to rule out that particular option without 'empirical proof' that it wasn't extraterrestrial!...Which I believe is perfectly reasonable,...don't you?

Cheers.

My bad for assuming! Thanks for being civil!

Well, I'm off for the day for some good beer and a barbequed steak....... :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Interesting picture and I enjoy listening to coast to coast am and George when I have the chance. However I only find the show interesting to listen to and only believe about 0.1% of the things that are featured on that show. I very seldom post, but this...I just do not know how this thread has run to 22 pages. Its an interesting photo of a "UFO". We do not know what it is so it is unidentified but to just decide that it is from an advanced civilization, what part of unidentified is not understood? . But the direction this thread is taking is just...........not a good thing IMO, which is worth what you paid for it.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I believe in Alien space craft, however I am skeptical of many pictures.

This picture is an exception.

The sun angle appears correct on the object as the sun rays piercing the haze can actually be seen in the photo.

The object is relatively clear compared to many pictures.

And the camera is obviously pointed downward as focused on the goats as she claimed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If this picture is a fake, it's a damn good one.

If it's real, that is, there was really an object in the sky, it's a good picture of a UFO.

Problem is, there's no way to prove the UFO is extraterrestrial.

I think we've beaten this one to death unless someone comes up with a new approach.

3 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This picture is weird, i didnt notice that till some of you pointed it out, everything in the picture is right, but when you look at her and the camera, it seems that we should be seeing something else. Might just be a trick of the eye, i donno, maybe the whole thing is alien lol

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If this picture is a fake, it's a damn good one.

If it's real, that is, there was really an object in the sky, it's a good picture of a UFO.

Problem is, there's no way to prove the UFO is extraterrestrial.

I think we've beaten this one to death unless someone comes up with a new approach.

Agreed, until something new comes up there is very little else to be said or done.

Cheers,

Badeskov

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Looks fake in my opinon.

I think it's a ballon.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Looks fake in my opinon.

I think it's a ballon.

Very possible. It could be a childs balloon, metallic, shaped like some cartoon character and viewed from a strange angle. Perhaps even partially deflated, so the shape is unrecognizable, and still with sufficient helium to keep it aloft.

There are many possibilities.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If this picture is a fake, it's a damn good one.

If it's real, that is, there was really an object in the sky, it's a good picture of a UFO.

Have the criteria for good UFO pictures dropped this low? The UFO is out of focus, it's just a few dozen pixels wide and the details we can see are a mess. People can't even agree what they're seeing. Some see a balloon. Some see a parachute. I see a globe connected to a hoop.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Have the criteria for good UFO pictures dropped this low? The UFO is out of focus, it's just a few dozen pixels wide and the details we can see are a mess. People can't even agree what they're seeing. Some see a balloon. Some see a parachute. I see a globe connected to a hoop.

I believe the original photographic analysis by Ritzmann and have not seen anyone do better, at least not any source that I would trust.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I believe the original photographic analysis by Ritzmann and have not seen anyone do better, at least not any source that I would trust.

You have very selective trust issues!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I believe the original photographic analysis by Ritzmann and have not seen anyone do better, at least not any source that I would trust.

A proper analysis has nothing to do with trust. It is all about what is derived and how it is done, all put forth for scrutiny. In this case The analysis by Ritzman is not as transparent as one could wish for. I find that Chrlz made a very good case.

Cheers,

Badeskov

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I believe the original photographic analysis by Ritzmann and have not seen anyone do better, at least not any source that I would trust.

Despite what Ritzmann or anyone else says, the object in the photo is still blurry and too small to make out any details. This is not what I would call a good photo of anything.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A proper analysis has nothing to do with trust. It is all about what is derived and how it is done, all put forth for scrutiny. In this case The analysis by Ritzman is not as transparent as one could wish for. I find that Chrlz made a very good case.

Everything has to do with trust because everything is "political" and everyone has their own agenda. That's life, so I often go with my gut instincts about who can be trusted.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Everything has to do with trust because everything is "political" and everyone has their own agenda. That's life, so I often go with my gut instincts about who can be trusted.

That is why an analysis should be transparent and reproducible, as that eliminates the political angle and thus the need for trust. Just as 2+2 = 4 does not need trust.

Cheers,

Badeskov

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That is why an analysis should be transparent and reproducible, as that eliminates the political angle and thus the need for trust. Just as 2+2 = 4 does not need trust.

I've written many analyses and read many more, but I have found that the most important things may never be written down at all.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I've written many analyses and read many more, but I have found that the most important things may never be written down at all.

Then you write down what you can/will and then that it is incomplete will simply be pointed out by others, just as Chrlz pointed out a few issues here, thereby augmenting the analysis. Thus the need for transparency and the reason why I am not hooked on Ritzman.

Cheers,

Badeskov

Edited by badeskov
1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Then you write down what you can/will and then that it is incomplete will simply be pointed out by others, just as Chrlz pointed out a few issues here, thereby augmenting the analysis. Thus the need for transparency and the reason why I am not hooked on Ritz

The thing that is obvious with him is that he is extremely biased against the idea that UFOs are ET and is merely looking for evidence that will confirm his preconceived views.

Nothing could be clearer than that given his many comments on here (and yours too), but the thing I can't stand is the false claims of scientific neutrality and objectivity. I never see any of that on here.

Edited by TheMacGuffin

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The thing that is obvious with him is that he is extreme biased against the idea that UFOs are ET and is merely looking for evidence that will confirm his preconceived views.

Nothing could be clearer than that given his many comments on here (and yours too), but the thing I can't stand is the false claims of scientific neutrality and objectivity. I never see any of that on here.

We all have bias one or the other way, I doubt that anybody can honestly proclaim themselves free of that, however, that only emphasizes the need for a transparent analysis, does it not?

Cheers,

Badeskov

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

We all have bias one or the other way, I doubt that anybody can honestly proclaim themselves free of that, however, that only emphasizes the need for a transparent analysis, does it not?

I'll take one if I can get it, but I just don't see many of them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I've written many analyses and read many more, but I have found that the most important things may never be written down at all.

Well, let's SEE one of your analyses. I've offered my expertise for appraisal and criticism. To date, no-one has disputed any of the information I've provided, some of which - like the haze issue - directly contradicts the Ritzmann 'analysis'.

It seems some folks just talk about their alleged expertise, rather than show it. The readers can decide what that means..

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, let's SEE one of your analyses. I've offered my expertise for appraisal and criticism. To date, no-one has disputed any of the information I've provided, some of which - like the haze issue - directly contradicts the Ritzmann 'analysis'.

It seems some folks just talk about their alleged expertise, rather than show it. The readers can decide what that means..

I dispute it just because I know of your general bias and preconceived notions about UFOs and ETs, not because I ever claimed to be a photographic expert. I think you would happily spin and manipulate just about anything to accord with your general ideas on the subject. You're not alone in that. LOL

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If we could find a real expert who everyone agreed did not have a particular ax to grind one way or another then that would be acceptable, but I just do not think that Badeskov or Chrizs fit that bill--not by a long shot. They are always on here to argue AGAINST any UFOs being ET, and do so 100% of the time.

So no, I cannot accept any of their views on the subject at face value, no more than they could ever accept mine.

Edited by TheMacGuffin
1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What is it about this object that identifies it as possibly alien anyway? The fact that it's unidentified and air born (because honestly anything else is simply conjecture)? Is that all that is required to make the leap to ET? I'll never understand that particular train of thought.

Not necessarily "alien", just a UFO - unidentified flying object.

Now, for that to be a UFO it would have to be proven to be real. I feel that it is but who knows?

The hue is a great match to the hue of the atmosphere but, the object does not appear to be symetric.

don't know.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Not necessarily "alien", just a UFO - unidentified flying object.

Now, for that to be a UFO it would have to be proven to be real. I feel that it is but who knows?

The hue is a great match to the hue of the atmosphere but, the object does not appear to be symetric.

don't know.

It's just a missile test Earl. You should recognize those by now.

:P

(Intended to be friendly. Gosh, why do I have to clarify that?)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 4

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.