Jump to content
Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -

‘Why I know aliens haven’t visited Earth’


Still Waters

Recommended Posts

22 minutes ago, Golden Duck said:

And your reply is unreasonably emotuve.

'Common Sense Is Nothing More Than a Deposit of Prejudices Laid Down in the Mind Before Age Eighteen'

http://quoteinvestigator.com/2014/04/29/common-sense/amp/

It looks like you've set your sights on me so, without any hostility on my part, I'll ignore any future replies from you.

From:
http://www.vocabularie.com/emotuve
Emotuve Misspelling

What is the meaning of misspelled word emotuve?

1. Did you mean emotive? - The meaning of emotive

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 
57 minutes ago, NYCEddie said:

It looks like you've set your sights on me so, without any hostility on my part, I'll ignore any future replies from you.

From:
http://www.vocabularie.com/emotuve
Emotuve Misspelling

What is the meaning of misspelled word emotuve?

1. Did you mean emotive? - The meaning of emotive

Cool story bro.  Calling out spelling or typos when a lot of users are now on smart phones - as an experienced user you'd know what the forum rules say about this.

Cute that you say you're going to ignore someone then follow up by directing a question at them.

I haven't got my sights on you, only something you said.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

42 minutes ago, NYCEddie said:

Let me add 2 short videos shot in Sep. '16 of daylight flashing lights:

9-5-2016
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ck4R6MTu5Z0

9-11
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=muoAFDK3NHQ
 

I didn't see anything in the first and only a short spurt of a bright object moving steadily across the sky which appeared to be a high flying aircraft with the sun glaring off it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, NYCEddie said:

Let me add 2 short videos shot in Sep. '16 of daylight flashing lights:

9-5-2016
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ck4R6MTu5Z0

9-11
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=muoAFDK3NHQ
 

I don't see anything compelling in those two videos.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, NYCEddie said:

A debunker is only as good as the debunking information he/she employs. My debunking efforts relied only on unimpeachable data from more than one source. You really can't blame believers for having beliefs that ignore logic, reason and common sense for that is what mental conditioning is designed to replace. You can't have a cult of individuals, only of like-minded, conditioned minds. When you join the military the first thing they try to achieve is to break you of your individualness to behave as one with the rest of your fellow soldiers, to obey.

Credentialed scientists are no guarantee of being intelligent outside of their chosen field. Look at the History Channel offerings and hear many Ph.Ds sound plain stupid. After all Ph.D. stands for Doctor of Philosophy and as stated in the 1981 film "History Of The World: Part 1":

Dole Office Clerk:
Occupation?

Comicus:
Stand up philosopher.

Dole Office Clerk:
What?

Comicus:
Stand up philosopher. I coalesce the vapors of human existence into a viable and meaningful comprehension.

Dole Office Clerk:
Oh, a bull**** artist!

 

The debunking I see here is pretty good.  I don't do much of it because there are plenty better at it than I am -- I will however point out inconsistencies and illogicalities when I see them.

When I came here (awhile ago) I expected breathless competition on who could come up with the biggest whopper; what I find is what one finds pretty much any similar place -- arguments about politics (mostly paid trolls and people with sense) and religion (civilized, believe it or not) with some woo occasionally thrown in, but not particularly more than other places.

Your derogatory comments about credentials are silly.  All credentials represent is education and publication of original research.  Those are major achievements and earn one a voice.  The person can be wrong, but so long as they stick to their expertise, this is not likely, and has become less and less likely over history.

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Frank Merton said:

The debunking I see here is pretty good.  I don't do much of it because there are plenty better at it than I am -- I will however point out inconsistencies and illogicalities when I see them.

When I came here (awhile ago) I expected breathless competition on who could come up with the biggest whopper; what I find is what one finds pretty much any similar place -- arguments about politics (mostly paid trolls and people with sense) and religion (civilized, believe it or not) with some woo occasionally thrown in, but not particularly more than other places.

Your derogatory comments about credentials are silly.  All credentials represent is education and publication of original research.  Those are major achievements and earn one a voice.  The person can be wrong, but so long as they stick to their expertise, this is not likely, and has become less and less likely over history.

During my previous stint here there were some good, entertaining and educational debunking debates over such topics as "DARK MISSION: Photo of "spar" on Moon - Real?"

My comments about some credentialed scientists was not derogatory for you can see and hear for yourself how silly they can sound. However, I shouldn't single out scientists as I meant to say highly-educated individuals. The name and birth of "Jesus Christ" is bandied about as a reference point in almost every documentary. You'd think the History Channel would contribute to deprogramming the religious audience by not allowing a myth to be used as reference. Worse, when the quoted scientists say the name they treat it like a first and last name when it is more factual to say "Jesus the Christ" for "christ" simply means "the anointed one" and is not a last name. Dan Brown didn't help when he titled his book "The Da Vinci Code" when he had to mean the "The Leonardo Code", or "The Leonardo da Vinci Code" for "Da Vinci" or more correct "da Vinci" means "from Vinci", Leonardo from Vinci. 

TV channel Smithsonian runs daily docs about Jesus ("The Real Jesus of Nazareth") and sometimes they use scientists as spokespeople. CNN runs "Finding Jesus: Faith, Fact" when there is isn't one fact to support the reality but scientists chime in and use his birth as reference. It's sickening to hear these people speak because you expect them to know better, having gone to colleges, universities, and so on.

I wouldn't argue with Carl Sagan about the cosmos but when he makes a stupid statement about UFOs, I'll challenge his thinking. You also get a lot of b.s. from many NASA scientists especially about STS-48, just ask James Oberg.

Education can broaden your education level but it doesn't always result in logic, reason and common sense.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Merc14 said:

I didn't see anything in the first and only a short spurt of a bright object moving steadily across the sky which appeared to be a high flying aircraft with the sun glaring off it.

So you didn't see 11 flashes, and possibly a few more? The first video is a good vision tester as you proved with your comment. Change the YouTube video speed from Normal to 0.25 and be ready to freeze the frame at :13, :27, :42, :47, :52, :56, 1:02, 1:05, 1:09, 1:12, 1:18.

The second video is not of an object racing across the sky. Look at the cloud patterns and you'll see that it hangs around the same area.

 Check out all of the other similar videos of daylight flashing white "orbs".

 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, NYCEddie said:

So you didn't see 11 flashes, and possibly a few more? The first video is a good vision tester as you proved with your comment. Change the YouTube video speed from Normal to 0.25 and be ready to freeze the frame at :13, :27, :42, :47, :52, :56, 1:02, 1:05, 1:09, 1:12, 1:18.

The second video is not of an object racing across the sky. Look at the cloud patterns and you'll see that it hangs around the same area.

 Check out all of the other similar videos of daylight flashing white "orbs".

 

Your first video was terrible eddie, the focus or something was going in and pout and one side was blurry so I'd guess that random flashes was a problem with the camera.   The second one looked like the late afternoon sun flaring off a high altitude aircraft and overwhelming the CCD in that one spot but the entire second half of the video was grainy to the point of being useless.  Also, when you aim a video camera at the clear day lighted sky and then electronically zoom it to the max you're going to create anomalies such as the camera stepping down to compensate for so much light thereby causing that very bright aircraft to flare but I am guessing so maybe ChrLzs or someone knowledgeable on the subject can explain and/or straighten me out.. 

 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 hours ago, Merc14 said:

maybe ChrLzs or someone knowledgeable on the subject can explain and/or straighten me out

Can't be bothered, altho read on...  I have seen NYCE at work previously, and as you have noted, the contents are unevidenced and/or unremarkable.  As is his knowledge of cameras / digital sensors / image artefacts / what flying objects look like when they get caught in sunlight, etc.

 

If there's anything specific that you or any other erudite forumgoer thinks is unusual or worthy of analysis, do let me know.  Until then I have much better stuff to waste my time on!

Edited by ChrLzs
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 4/18/2017 at 11:28 AM, NYCEddie said:

During my previous stint here there were some good, entertaining and educational debunking debates over such topics as "DARK MISSION: Photo of "spar" on Moon - Real?"

My comments about some credentialed scientists was not derogatory for you can see and hear for yourself how silly they can sound. However, I shouldn't single out scientists as I meant to say highly-educated individuals. The name and birth of "Jesus Christ" is bandied about as a reference point in almost every documentary. You'd think the History Channel would contribute to deprogramming the religious audience by not allowing a myth to be used as reference. Worse, when the quoted scientists say the name they treat it like a first and last name when it is more factual to say "Jesus the Christ" for "christ" simply means "the anointed one" and is not a last name. Dan Brown didn't help when he titled his book "The Da Vinci Code" when he had to mean the "The Leonardo Code", or "The Leonardo da Vinci Code" for "Da Vinci" or more correct "da Vinci" means "from Vinci", Leonardo from Vinci. 

TV channel Smithsonian runs daily docs about Jesus ("The Real Jesus of Nazareth") and sometimes they use scientists as spokespeople. CNN runs "Finding Jesus: Faith, Fact" when there is isn't one fact to support the reality but scientists chime in and use his birth as reference. It's sickening to hear these people speak because you expect them to know better, having gone to colleges, universities, and so on.

I wouldn't argue with Carl Sagan about the cosmos but when he makes a stupid statement about UFOs, I'll challenge his thinking. You also get a lot of b.s. from many NASA scientists especially about STS-48, just ask James Oberg.

Education can broaden your education level but it doesn't always result in logic, reason and common sense.

 

There are people who spend their entire lives studying the scriptures and commentaries of one of the religious traditions (both the great and the not-so-great).  Now this is education, for sure, but about fantasies, so one has to wonder regarding its worth. 

I regularly talk with some of my neighbors about the usefulness of knowledge about the moon (I don't dare mention my interest in galaxies and things like that) and they of course think it a ridiculous waste of an otherwise perfectly good mind.

I have a regular correspondent and we talk about nothing but the latest results in prime number research. Now of what value are theorems regarding the frequency of the occurrence in the number line of "double primes" (prime numbers separated by only one other -- even -- number) and whether there is a maximum separation between such events?

I think maybe the point I'm making is a lot of what is behind research and study is not so much the pursuit of knowledge for its usefulness but pursuit of knowledge for its beauty -- an art form, as it were.

As for Jesus theories, since I think he was a Greek mystery cult myth (standard mystery cult of sacrificed and resurrected savior, this time put in Jewish garb), you can imagine I haven't much interest.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, ChrLzs said:

Can't be bothered, altho read on...  I have seen NYCE at work previously, and as you have noted, the contents are unevidenced and/or unremarkable.  As is his knowledge of cameras / digital sensors / image artefacts / what flying objects look like when they get caught in sunlight, etc.

 

If there's anything specific that you or any other erudite forumgoer thinks is unusual or worthy of analysis, do let me know.  Until then I have much better stuff to waste my time on!

The only question I have is was I correct when I wrote that aiming a video camera at the open daylight sky will make it step down which may cause a brightly lit high altitude aircraft to bloom? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, Merc14 said:

The only question I have is was I correct when I wrote that aiming a video camera at the open daylight sky will make it step down

Yes, the camera will change the aperture and/or shutter speed to adjust the exposure.  It will normally change the aperture first, only changing shutter speed when absolutely necessary.  A change in aperture will do several things:

- it will obviously darken or brighten the entire scene.  Things that are very bright may become 'bloomed' (ie the light spreads to adjacent pixels and it blurs outwards) and they may also 'blow out' or 'block' - ie go to pure bright white - at which point details are lost.  In the other direction, if it darkens the scene, dark objects may go to black, again losing detail.

- it will decrease/increase the depth of field, ie the range of distance that is in focus.  As the aperture gets smaller, the depth of field increases, so more stuff in front/behind the focus distance will be in focus (but see note below).  This is probably only an issue with higher quality cameras, as el cheapo cameras have large amounts of depth of field anyway.

- it will change the appearance of bokeh, ie the appearance of out of focus objects.  Bokeh often introduces false details that are due to the lens/sensor design - so you should *never* trust 'detail' in anything that is even slightly out of focus.  This particularly applies to 'enhanced' imagery, or that where digital zoom has been used - see note below)  

Note - there is no guarantee that the object of interest is in focus, ie where the focus distance is set.  For small/low contrast objects (eg ufo's), the autofocus on all but the most expensive cameras will struggle, and you will often see it 'hunting', ie racking the focus back and forth trying to get the maximum contrast - contrast is a good (but not the best) guide to whether something is in focus..  Furthermore, if the camera is using digital zoom, then the camera is effectively making shistuff up...  Digital zoom has a characteristic fuzzy/pixellated appearance that is generally easy to recognise.  If someone is using it, they really haven't a clue how to use their camera - digital zoom should NEVER EVER be used for zooming up distant objects that are only a few pixels wide.  If anyone here is a UFO enthusiast, turn that function OFF or you'll never be taken seriously.

 

8 hours ago, Merc14 said:

which may cause a brightly lit high altitude aircraft to bloom? 

As per above, it can... but it's quite complicated and there are numerous factors that will degrade the object's detail.

However, it's fair to say that if any part of an aircraft 'catches' the sun, that will definitely bloom pretty much no matter what the camera tries to do. Direct/reflected sunlight is way too bright for any normal camera's sensor, no matter how high you set the shutter speed nor how small the aperture is.

So, to also add resolution into the mix we can complete the picture (pun intended):

- insufficient resolution (eg the object is only covered by a few pixels) = lost or false detail (esp. when enlarged)

- out of focus = lost or false detail

- digital zoom = lost or false detail

- Sunlight reflections = bloom = false appearance and lost or false detail

Add all those to an overenthusiastic imagination and the need to be special/lucky enough to see alienz...  :alien:  :no:

  • Like 5
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 
3 hours ago, ChrLzs said:

Yes, the camera will change the aperture and/or shutter speed to adjust the exposure.  It will normally change the aperture first, only changing shutter speed when absolutely necessary.  A change in aperture will do several things:

- it will obviously darken or brighten the entire scene.  Things that are very bright may become 'bloomed' (ie the light spreads to adjacent pixels and it blurs outwards) and they may also 'blow out' or 'block' - ie go to pure bright white - at which point details are lost.  In the other direction, if it darkens the scene, dark objects may go to black, again losing detail.

- it will decrease/increase the depth of field, ie the range of distance that is in focus.  As the aperture gets smaller, the depth of field increases, so more stuff in front/behind the focus distance will be in focus (but see note below).  This is probably only an issue with higher quality cameras, as el cheapo cameras have large amounts of depth of field anyway.

- it will change the appearance of bokeh, ie the appearance of out of focus objects.  Bokeh often introduces false details that are due to the lens/sensor design - so you should *never* trust 'detail' in anything that is even slightly out of focus.  This particularly applies to 'enhanced' imagery, or that where digital zoom has been used - see note below)  

Note - there is no guarantee that the object of interest is in focus, ie where the focus distance is set.  For small/low contrast objects (eg ufo's), the autofocus on all but the most expensive cameras will struggle, and you will often see it 'hunting', ie racking the focus back and forth trying to get the maximum contrast - contrast is a good (but not the best) guide to whether something is in focus..  Furthermore, if the camera is using digital zoom, then the camera is effectively making shistuff up...  Digital zoom has a characteristic fuzzy/pixellated appearance that is generally easy to recognise.  If someone is using it, they really haven't a clue how to use their camera - digital zoom should NEVER EVER be used for zooming up distant objects that are only a few pixels wide.  If anyone here is a UFO enthusiast, turn that function OFF or you'll never be taken seriously.

 

As per above, it can... but it's quite complicated and there are numerous factors that will degrade the object's detail.

However, it's fair to say that if any part of an aircraft 'catches' the sun, that will definitely bloom pretty much no matter what the camera tries to do. Direct/reflected sunlight is way too bright for any normal camera's sensor, no matter how high you set the shutter speed nor how small the aperture is.

So, to also add resolution into the mix we can complete the picture (pun intended):

- insufficient resolution (eg the object is only covered by a few pixels) = lost or false detail (esp. when enlarged)

- out of focus = lost or false detail

- digital zoom = lost or false detail

- Sunlight reflections = bloom = false appearance and lost or false detail

Add all those to an overenthusiastic imagination and the need to be special/lucky enough to see alienz...  :alien:  :no:

Thanks much ChrLzs, it is very appreciated and explains the appearance of the object in question perfectlyin teh sky .   Now the question is did NYCEddie not eyeball the aircraft and simply see something in his digitally zoomed video and misinterpret or did he eyeball the aircraft and present the bloomed object anyways?

Link to comment
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
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.