Cylindrical object caught by curiosity rover

[zoser]

You crack me up......

Take 4.....Dumbed down even more.

As I said, using reports you have posted.

Read my post properly.

Why are you shouting by the way?

The evidence is clear. When people see them they are landed, hovering, moving slowly. A good example is the Phoenix delta shaped craft.

Do people see them moving quickly? If so do they see them clearly? That's the question.

Anti-gravity in space? Are you sure they fly in space? How are you sure?

Edited May 4, 2014 by zoser

[scowl]

Also a humming sound.

...during KRAFTWERK concerts.

[scowl]

That's not how UFO's are reported to operate is it?

Yes it is.

And the deafening noise of these cumbersome craft doesn't persuade you against making such a bizarre comparison?

I guess you don't get outside very often because I see helicopters flying around Portland all the time. Unless they're a couple thousand feet from me I cannot hear any noise from them.

Electrical static type of noise is often reported. DYOR

You mean the electrical static type of noise when a whip is cracked or a branch is snapped?

We Ufologists call it the anti-gravity effect.

Oddly, that's what science fiction authors call it too.

You mean the rocket UFO object. Difficult to avoid when it stares you in the face.

Here is it again:

I'll just assume you meant to post that photo of bug guts again.

Now if you want the real explanation of the blurry bug guts photos done by a person who actually examined the photos and the EXIF data, go here:

http://thehoaxkiller....php?topic=57.0

I'll spoil it for you: other dirt specs on the window align exactly with the red splotch in both photographs proving that the red splotch is also on the window and the apparent motion is caused entirely by panning the iPhone.

Note that the photographer who is still anonymous (hint hint hint) claims the "rocket" went by as a streak but the two photos were actually taken seven seconds apart. That's consistent with how much Carver Lake has moved in the photo from a plane going 200 MPH. The anonymous person who posted the two photos is lying.

Debunked, Zoser. Move onto another case...

[JesseCuster]

The evidence is clear. When people see them they are landed, hovering, moving slowly. A good example is the Phoenix delta shaped craft.

People photographed and videotaped the Phoenix lights. Did the anti-gravity device go into effect then and blur the photos and video?

According to your argument, people see UFOs clearly in situations where cameras are not present or not used. Why would that be?

Your argument only makes sense if there's some sort of disconnect between photographic evidence of UFOs and eyewitness testimonies of aircraft, i.e. that UFOs that weren't photographed were the ones that were slow and hovering (which would of course be the easiest ones to photograph) and that the only times people took photographs were when the mysterious anti-gravity device was running.

Remember that you said it's "not possible" to take clear photographs of UFOs but you are well aware of examples of eyewitnesses giving descriptions of non-blurry clear UFOs (you've referenced them here). Your theory would only make sense if it was either impossible or just amazingly never happens that people take photographs under the conditions that the UFOs can be viewed clearly. Why would that be?

All this sound like a desperate ad hoc bunch of claims that don't really stand up to any sort of critical scrutiny.

[willowdreams]

no need to yell *grins*.. think of it dumbed down more (which is what *I* must do to see it on his point of view)..

When it is moving and such then cameras see it blurry and people see it blurry, when the ufo is hovering or 'parked', then it is clear and people can describe it and dot every i and cross every t. Howeve, cameras are rarely if ever around when it is 'hovering' or 'parked',which implies ufo aliens do a scan and see 'oooh a few pple or one, or maybe an entire ball parrt of pple and not a single camera or cell phone with camera, we can park it now!'

This is how you have to see it.

Again, I thought it was a joke post when i first saw it. My daughter is always amazed at how she reads about 'eye witness' accounts and descriptive details.. yet never a cell phone photo that shows details or anything.

BUT pple use cell phones to photo car accidents for car ins. companies all the time , with enough details!

Also keep in mind you have all those people who every night go out with cameras that cost hundreds to thousands of dollars and telescops with cameras that are thousands of dollars and htey photograph asteroids and stars and planets... but never a detailed image of a space craft/ufo, even if its hovering in the distance

this is why i never take such things serious

You crack me up......

Take 4.....Dumbed down even more.

As I said, using reports you have posted.

A UFO flying, seen by people. Descriptions of UFO in detail. Clear, silver, windows, writing, lights, etc....They reported seeing it flying, and describe it in detail.

Again, why do witnesses see them clear, but cameras do not?.......How does this hold to your antigravity theory?

Can you try not to skirt around these yet again please.

And, anti-gravity in space?

[willowdreams]

no need to yell *grins*.. think of it dumbed down more (which is what *I* must do to see it on his point of view)..

When it is moving and such then cameras see it blurry and people see it blurry, when the ufo is hovering or 'parked', then it is clear and people can describe it and dot every i and cross every t. Howeve, cameras are rarely if ever around when it is 'hovering' or 'parked',which implies ufo aliens do a scan and see 'oooh a few pple or one, or maybe an entire ball park of pple and not a single camera or cell phone with camera, we can park it now!'

This is how you have to see it.

Again, I thought it was a joke post when i first saw it. My daughter is always amazed at how she reads about 'eye witness' accounts and descriptive details.. yet never a cell phone photo that shows details or anything.

BUT pple use cell phones to photo car accidents for car ins. companies all the time , with enough details!

Also keep in mind you have all those people who every night go out with cameras that cost hundreds to thousands of dollars and telescops with cameras that are thousands of dollars and htey photograph asteroids and stars and planets... but never a detailed image of a space craft/ufo, even if its hovering in the distance

this is why i never take such things serious

Edited May 4, 2014 by willowdreams

[zoser]

People photographed and videotaped the Phoenix lights.

Regarding the row of lights in the Phoenix incident; from a distance but the overall shape of the craft could not be discerned from that footage,

The huge delta shaped craft is what I am referring too. To my knowledge no footage has ever surfaced on that object.

It was moving by all accounts slowly so I would fully expect it to be clear as indeed they reported.

Fast moving objects, where the anti-gravity technology is intensely engaged I would expect to be different.

According to your argument, people see UFOs clearly in situations where cameras are not present or not used.

If stationary or slow moving/hovering. A good example was Stephen Michalak. He saw up close and touched a saucer.

Your argument only makes sense if there's some sort of disconnect between photographic evidence of UFOs and eyewitness testimonies of aircraft, i.e. that UFOs that weren't photographed were the ones that were slow and hovering (which would of course be the easiest ones to photograph) and that the only times people took photographs were when the mysterious anti-gravity device was running.

Remember that you said it's "not possible" to take clear photographs of UFOs but you are well aware of examples of eyewitnesses giving descriptions of non-blurry clear UFOs (you've referenced them here). Your theory would only make sense if it was either impossible or just amazingly never happens that people take photographs under the conditions that the UFOs can be viewed clearly. Why would that be?

You are trying hard not to understand the concept. Try and read again what I have said.

[Sakari]

Read my post properly.

Why are you shouting by the way?

The evidence is clear. When people see them they are landed, hovering, moving slowly. A good example is the Phoenix delta shaped craft.

Do people see them moving quickly? If so do they see them clearly? That's the question.

Anti-gravity in space? Are you sure they fly in space? How are you sure?

I am not shouting. Shouting is all caps.

So, basically you can say " I don't know ".

[zoser]

I am not shouting. Shouting is all caps.

So, basically you can say " I don't know ".

See post 132. It's all there.

[Sakari]

See post 132. It's all there.

Thank you Zoser. That is all I was asking from the start.

[zoser]

Thank you Zoser. That is all I was asking from the start.

Glad to oblige. If I come across evidence that contradicts the theory rest assured I'll post it. For now all the evidence I have read points that way.

See you soon.

[scowl]

If stationary or slow moving/hovering. A good example was Stephen Michalak. He saw up close and touched a saucer.

Hoax, and not a good one. He burned holes straight through his hat and the glove. Naturally he refused the help of the police and called a newspaper for help instead.

When asked how could something burn a hole through his hat yet not burn a hair on his head, he had no answer. When asked how something could burn a hole through his glove yet not leave any burn on his hand, he had no answer. When the RCMP officer had asked too many uncomfortable questions, Michalak suddenly stopped cooperating and ran off even though he was supposedly sick and badly burned.

You've got to plan these things better.

[AZDZ]

About the silent wavering UFOs, I know what you're describing zoser. I've seen and not heard them too. Good luck convincing others though. Unless people experience them for themselves it's too difficult a reality to accept.

Regarding the row of lights in the Phoenix incident; from a distance but the overall shape of the craft could not be discerned from that footage,

The huge delta shaped craft is what I am referring too. To my knowledge no footage has ever surfaced on that object.

It was moving by all accounts slowly so I would fully expect it to be clear as indeed they reported.

Do you mean the 'boomerang' UFO also videotaped the night (3/13/97) of the (debunked) Phoenix Lights Incident?

Assuming so, a video did once exist. I remember seeing the video numerous times. It was often shown in 'documentaries' dealing with the PLI. Here is an artists rendering of that vehicle. http://en.wikipedia..../Phoenix_Lights

I believe all the bad press once the PLI was debunked caused the video owner to pull it from the web. The baby went out with the bathwater, so to speak. The eyewitness accounts of the boomerang are still available. See link.

Oh, and beware of skeptics clouding the issue by attempting to combine the PLI and the boomerang into a single event. The PLI was debunked but the boomerang wasn't.

[zoser]

Hoax, and not a good one. He burned holes straight through his hat and the glove. Naturally he refused the help of the police and called a newspaper for help instead.

When asked how could something burn a hole through his hat yet not burn a hair on his head, he had no answer. When asked how something could burn a hole through his glove yet not leave any burn on his hand, he had no answer. When the RCMP officer had asked too many uncomfortable questions, Michalak suddenly stopped cooperating and ran off even though he was supposedly sick and badly burned.

You've got to plan these things better.

The radiation burns were let me see; birth ,marks?

Your theory is as weak as a kitten

[zoser]

About the silent wavering UFOs, I know what you're describing zoser. I've seen and not heard them too. Good luck convincing others though. Unless people experience them for themselves it's too difficult a reality to accept.

Do you mean the 'boomerang' UFO also videotaped the night (3/13/97) of the (debunked) Phoenix Lights Incident?

Assuming so, a video did once exist. I remember seeing the video numerous times. It was often shown in 'documentaries' dealing with the PLI. Here is an artists rendering of that vehicle. http://en.wikipedia..../Phoenix_Lights

I believe all the bad press once the PLI was debunked caused the video owner to pull it from the web. The baby went out with the bathwater, so to speak. The eyewitness accounts of the boomerang are still available. See link.

Oh, and beware of skeptics clouding the issue by attempting to combine the PLI and the boomerang into a single event. The PLI was debunked but the boomerang wasn't.

Yes mean the huge delta shaped object that hovered slowly above the houses witnessed by many residents.

Described here:

As you say never debunked.

Artist's impression:

Edited May 5, 2014 by zoser

[badeskov]

I mean the huge delta shaped object that hovered slowly above the houses witnessed by many residents.

Described here:

I'm not aware it was video'd or photographed. If you find one please post it!

The Phoenix light have never been debunked.

Again please provide link if you believe it was. There are lots of witnesses that saw the object in the above clip; it was I repeat never debunked.

By all means of respect, but are you really that dense? Yes, it was debunked, explanations were given - you just don't like them, huh?

Cheers,

Badeskov

[zoser]

By all means of respect, but are you really that dense? Yes, it was debunked, explanations were given - you just don't like them, huh?

Cheers,

Badeskov

Wishful thinking again. See above post.

[psyche101]

Wishful thinking again. See above post.

Are you too lazy to start your own threads, or do you get a kick out of polluting each and everyone with your off topic ramblings? qxcontinuum seems to like making thread, maybe you two ought to form a team, he can start them, and you can ramble on, then we critical thinkers will finish them for you.

And the Phoenix lights have been thoroughly debunked, to claim otherwise is merely attention seeking.

Edited May 5, 2014 by psyche101

[zoser]

Are you too lazy to start your own threads, or do you get a kick out of polluting each and everyone with your off topic ramblings? qxcontinuum seems to like making thread, maybe you two ought to form a team, he can start them, and you can ramble on, then we critical thinkers will finish them for you.

You've been debunked again My P.

See you tomorrow..

And the Phoenix lights have been thoroughly debunked, to claim otherwise is merely attention seeking.

You wish.

Edited May 5, 2014 by zoser

[AZDZ]

That's what I meant, they try to debunk the boomerang event by associating it with the flares event but they are two different things. The boomerang was witnessed/videoed first then later the flares event occurred.

I believe the flares event was conducted because someone knew the boomerang had been spotted en masse so a cover story was deemed necessary. The flares were deployed in a big show then they became the primary subject of that days events thus overshadowing the boomerang almost completely.

The plan continues working too, with all traces of the video now suppressed all that remains is the eyewitness accounts, and we all know how easy it is for them to be downplayed. As the forthcoming string of skeptics calling foul will now attest.

Edited May 5, 2014 by AZDZ

[Merc14]

That's what I meant, they try to debunk the boomerang event by associating it with the flares event but they are two different things. The boomerang was witnessed/videoed first then later the flares event occurred.

*SNIP* No one has said that the V formation was made by flares, the flares were a distinct second event that occurred later in the evening in question. The case was made that the V formation was square winged aircraft transiting the area, based on eyewitness testimony of an amateur astronomer using a telescope and a pilot using binoculars.

I believe the flares event was conducted because someone knew the boomerang had been spotted en masse so a cover story was deemed necessary. The flares were deployed in a big show then they became the primary subject of that days events thus overshadowing the boomerang almost completely.

Really? It seems like everyone here is well aware that there were two events that night and there are many videos available on the internet discussing booth events.

The plan continues working too, with all traces of the video now suppressed all that remains is the eyewitness accounts, and we all know how easy it is for them to be downplayed. As the forthcoming string of skeptics calling foul will now attest.

No one took a video of the V formation so you assume the ebil gubmint is suppressing it? What a cop out. Don't hate the skeptics because they pop all your delusions, just get a better grip on reality and approach mysterious events from the perspective that there is a logical explanation rather than the perspective that something extraordinary is happening, especially when you don't have extraordinary proof or, in fact, any proof at all.

Edited May 5, 2014 by Lilly
accusation removed

[Gaden]

Please excuse the confusion of an old fart, but can someone tell me what the last few pages have to do with a misconstrued photo from Mars?

[Sweetpumper]

Please excuse the confusion of an old fart, but can someone tell me what the last few pages have to do with a misconstrued photo from Mars?

Nothing. As usual.

[seeder]

Please excuse the confusion of an old fart, but can someone tell me what the last few pages have to do with a misconstrued photo from Mars?

Its a zoser derail...yet again!

[sinewave]

Humm , not entirely convinced. In all the photos, this object appears to have the same length which is impossible for a single dot photographed multiple times. In the same time since rover was stationary this dot moved to fast if it was a celestial body. Even more why all other celestial bodies appear normal?

If the speed of the object was constant and the shutter was open for the same amount of time on each exposure, the length of the streak would be the same in the resulting images.

Edited May 5, 2014 by sinewave