What happened to UFO photography?

[zoser]

Dont divert the thread to your fave subjects. Thats been debunked plenty on the 'other thread' where you kept bringing it up

Dont you ever have anything new to discuss? You constantly repeat yourself with circular posts and its very boring

No quite.

The thread is about clarity of imaging and UFO's.

The Oregon object is directly relevant. It's one of the things I'm discussing here.

Get on board man and stop whinging.

Edited May 7, 2014 by zoser

[seeder]

The thread is about clarity of imaging and UFO's.

Exactly, and NOT about your favorite squashed bug on a window thats been well and truly debunked. Do you need reminding where it was debunked? Besides, what the feck do you know about photography? Youve said in the past your career was - you were an Engineer, you were a Maths teacher, and currently are a Museum worker.

Where did you get any photographic skills/training?

typo's

Edited May 7, 2014 by seeder

[dr no]

His philosophy is one thing. Debunking his videos is another. That's not been done yet.

Interesting that the analysis revealed a haze under the craft. Anti-gravity me thinks.

So you believe the moving footage took by Adamski is real? Despite what the people in your link said ,it's one of the poorest films in the annals of ufology,

[zoser]

Exactly, and NOT about your favorite squashed bug on a window thats been well and truly debunked. Do you need reminding where it was debunked? Besides, what the feck do you know about photography? Youve said in the past your career was - you were an Engineer, you were a Maths teacher, and currently are a Museum worker.

Where did you get any photographic skills/training?

typo's

Moaning again.

So you believe the moving footage took by Adamski is real? Despite what the people in your link said ,it's one of the poorest films in the annals of ufology,

It's never been debunked is what I said.

If it's that poor then have a go. Why do you think expert analysis hasn't managed to do it yet?

Exactly, and NOT about your favorite squashed bug on a window thats been well and truly debunked.

Proof..............?

[seeder]

Proof..............?

yes proof of your distinct lack of any photographic skills were put on display, by yourself, when you thought youd found a UFO in some old black and white footage which you fiercely defended for a while.. .. until the realisation dawned on you it was in fact... a smudge on the film

[zoser]

yes proof of your distinct lack of any photographic skills were put on display, by yourself, when you thought youd found a UFO in some old black and white footage which you fiercely defended for a while.. .. until the realisation dawned on you it was in fact... a smudge on the film

So no proof then; just more empty claims.

[dr no]

Moaning again.

It's never been debunked is what I said.

If it's that poor then have a go. Why do you think expert analysis hasn't managed to do it yet?

Proof..............?

You have to be desperate to take Adamski seriously

http://www.unexplained-mysteries.com/viewvideo.php?id=1M_ADHmPl7s&tid=226357

http://www.skepticreport.com/sr/?p=101

[toast]

You'll never learn about UFO's if you refuse to read up on the subject.

It´s also getting teached that the earth is just 6K years old, so what.

[scowl]

His philosophy is one thing. Debunking his videos is another. That's not been done yet.

You yourself have declared the contactees from the 60's to be frauds yet you believe their fake photos and films might be authentic? And you wonder why we laugh at you.

Interesting that the analysis revealed a haze under the craft. Anti-gravity me thinks.

Do you know what can cause haze in photography? Just about anything.

If you need to know anything more about photography don't hesitate to ask.

[seeder]

So no proof then; just more empty claims.

Excuse me? What empty claims?

[zoser]

Excuse me? What empty claims?

http://www.unexplained-mysteries.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=266085&st=75#entry5162422

Back it up if you can.

[scowl]

The Oregon object is directly relevant. It's one of the things I'm discussing here.

You have not discussed it after it was debunked. The two photos are a perfect case of an anonymous liar posting photos which analysis proved did not match the anonymous liar's story.

Just admit that you were fooled and move onto something else.

[zoser]

You yourself have declared the contactees from the 60's to be frauds yet you believe their fake photos and films might be authentic? And you wonder why we laugh at you.

As I said earlier, I'm not sure about his philosophy. There are however other ways to explain that. His images and video footage are another thing.

Do you know what can cause haze in photography? Just about anything.

If you need to know anything more about photography don't hesitate to ask.

I'll pass on that one. I'm looking for truth, not denial. Thanks anyway.

[seeder]

http://www.unexplain...75#entry5162422

Back it up if you can.

So, the post you linked too, are you now going to say, you were NOT an Engineer, you were NOT a Maths teacher, and are NOT currently are a Museum worker?

[zoser]

You have not discussed it after it was debunked. The two photos are a perfect case of an anonymous liar posting photos which analysis proved did not match the anonymous liar's story.

Just admit that you were fooled and move onto something else.

Back up what you are saying please. Otherwise just empty claims.

So, the post you linked too, are you now going to say, you were NOT an Engineer, you were NOT a Maths teacher, and are NOT currently are a Museum worker?

[seeder]

I'll pass on that one. I'm looking for truth, not denial. Thanks anyway.

The kind of sources you favour means that you'll never find any truth. One day you will realise its the big boys literature that holds more answers, not youtube and ufo websites

[zoser]

You have to be desperate to take Adamski seriously

http://www.unexplain...Pl7s&tid=226357

http://www.skepticreport.com/sr/?p=101

No debunk there. Just fakery. The question is the Adamski footage fakery?

Your videos don't prove that.

[scowl]

Back up what you are saying please. Otherwise just empty claims.

[seeder]

So the last few posts have clearly not been about the OP topic. Thanks to zoser.. again

[zoser]

The kind of sources you favour means that you'll never find any truth. One day you will realise its the big boys literature that holds more answers, not youtube and ufo websites

Can you prove the Oregon image fake or not?

Can you prove Adamski's images fake or not?

I doubt it because the truth is very very little has ever been debunked here and I doubt seriously whether the members have the means to actually do it.

What they do have in abundance is evasion and denial.

That's not debunking.

[scowl]

No debunk there. Just fakery. The question is the Adamski footage fakery?

Is this photo of a glowing boomerang fakery?

If so, prove it, otherwise you're just making an empty claim.

[seeder]

Can you prove Adamski's images fake or not?

Only a moron would need it proving. DYOR as you love to say, try serious sources like WIKI,

[scowl]

Can you prove the Oregon image fake or not?

No, the photos are not fake. They are photos of a bug on a window. They story about them being photos of a rocket however is completely fake. The EXIF data of the photos prove it since they don't match the story. And that's that.

Can you prove Adamski's images fake or not?

The question is can you prove them to be authentic? If you can't then why waste your time with images that could have been faked?

I doubt it because the truth is very very little has ever been debunked here and I doubt seriously whether the members have the means to actually do it.

Actually lots is debunked here. You just don't understand it.

[Merc14]

Moaning again.

It's never been debunked is what I said.

If it's that poor then have a go. Why do you think expert analysis hasn't managed to do it yet?

Proof..............?

zoser, you asked them to prove that the object was something other than a blurred space ship passing an aircraft at high speed and they showed you, by using EXIF data and the fact that the object and dirt spots on the windshield maintained the same position relative to each other between photos taken from different perspectives, that it wasn't an object passing the aircraft at high speed. This proves the witness is a liar and the object is most likely attached to the windshield. I say attached to the windshield because if it was an object fllying welded wing with the aircraft, its position, relative to the dirt spots, would change when the camera perspective was changed.

So now it is up to you to prove them wrong or admit the photo is a fraud.

[dr no]

No debunk there. Just fakery. The question is the Adamski footage fakery?

Your videos don't prove that.

Ok you win! Adamski did capture a Venusian scout ship on film