Sakari Posted October 3, 2012 #3076 Share Posted October 3, 2012 That's the culprit. It's amazing how we can all be so easily fooled by these things. Zoser.. " we " is plural. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
1963 Posted October 3, 2012 #3077 Share Posted October 3, 2012 (edited) UFO crashing in China: [media=] [/media]! ADGUK is a well known video hoaxer Sweetpumper!..A good hoaxer that does decent videos, but a hoaxer all the same!....And what's more.... I somehow guess that you already knew that,...didn't you!..."You little tinker". Cheers buddy. Edited October 3, 2012 by 1963 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bee Posted October 3, 2012 #3078 Share Posted October 3, 2012 . They're still technically UFOs zoser..... I know...to keep everyone happy....let's say they were dark plasma something from Betelgeuse.... . 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheMacGuffin Posted October 3, 2012 #3079 Share Posted October 3, 2012 ADGUK is a well known video hoaxer Sweetpumper!..A good hoaxer that does decent videos, but a hoaxer all the same!....And what's more.... I somehow guess that you already knew that,...didn't you!..."You little tinker". Yes, video of an actual UFO crash is a little too good to be true, isn't it? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheMacGuffin Posted October 3, 2012 #3080 Share Posted October 3, 2012 (edited) The worst part is that if (when) there is any real UFO footage posted on You Tube, would anyone believe it given all the fakes and deliberate disinformation that it has been flooded with? That's the truly insidious part of the whole thing, covering up the whole subject of UFOs with garbage and lies. Yes, it's downright sinister, but clever too. And then some jokers can come along and say "See, none of it's real. There are no UFOs at all and the whole subject is fake." Insidious, since it turns the Internet into a subtle part of the cover up instead of an important tool to use against it. Edited October 3, 2012 by TheMacGuffin 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bee Posted October 3, 2012 #3081 Share Posted October 3, 2012 . well said TheMacGuffin...... 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
1963 Posted October 3, 2012 #3082 Share Posted October 3, 2012 (edited) The worst part is that if (when) there is any real UFO footage posted on You Tube, would anyone believe it given all the fakes and deliberate disinformation that it has been flooded with? That's the truly insidious part of the whole thing, covering up the whole subject of UFOs with garbage and lies. Yes, it's downright sinister, but clever too. So do you think that certain well known video-hoaxers such as this ADGUK clown could be paid disinformation agents then MacGuffin?.....Do you know, that really makes sense, and seems so eminently possible!! And to think,...i've pondered the motives of these guys for all this time, you know...Money,..Fame..Notoriety...Devilment etc, ...and something that sounds so obvious never even crossed my mind! Thanks for pointing that option out my friend. ...i'll certainly give it consideration! Cheers buddy. Edited October 3, 2012 by 1963 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bee Posted October 3, 2012 #3083 Share Posted October 3, 2012 ADGUK is a well known video hoaxer Sweetpumper!..A good hoaxer that does decent videos, but a hoaxer all the same!....And what's more.... I somehow guess that you already knew that,...didn't you!..."You little tinker". little tinker.....lol Yes, video of an actual UFO crash is a little too good to be true, isn't it? when I was having a look for a pinky coloured bit of footage that I'd seen before...of a 'UFO crash' (which I found)....I stumbled on this,,, don't know if it's been posted in the thread yet... Ex-USAF pilot says he chased a UFO across Texas and watched it crash on the Texas-Mexico border near Del Rio, Texas. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tipotep Posted October 3, 2012 #3084 Share Posted October 3, 2012 No detail to suggest it's a bug. The first shot looks very much as if the object was on the sky not in front of the lens. I have to lean to the dark side here Z , I think that you are making a huge stretch from a black spot to ET , I think it could have been absolutely anything including a bug .... The Crete pictures are one thing but I'm afraid your trying to make something out of nothing . Keep up the TT's , I have enjoyed watching or reading them and have found a " few " to be very interesting indeed TiP. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheMacGuffin Posted October 3, 2012 #3085 Share Posted October 3, 2012 So do you think that certain well known video-hoaxers such as this ADGUK clown could be paid disinformation agents then MacGuffin?.....Do you know, that really makes sense, and seems so eminently possible!! And to think,...i've pondered the motives of these guys for all this time, you know...Money,..Fame..Notoriety...Devilment etc, ...and something that sounds so obvious never even crossed my mind! Thanks for pointing that option out my friend. ...i'll certainly give it consideration! If I wanted to discredit UFOs completely, then I would flood the Internet with a bunch of fakes and disinformation, or just pay people to do it. It's the same principle as recommended by the CIA's Robertson Panel in 1953, which is to use unreliable sources like sensational tabloid newspapers to run all kinds of phony UFO stories like "I married an alien" or something like that. Nowadays, they could send in someone to post Internet blogs and stories about how they are in contact with aliens or have been visiting ET planets, which is the same type of thing George Adamski and other "contactees" were trying to sell in the 1950s. It's just a matter of adapting the same kinds of hoaxes and disinformation to a new medium. Ever notice that UFO conferences often get flooded with all kinds of loonies who then get their brief moments of glory on the evening news? It's the same thing again, and is designed to make the whole subject look kooky, bogus, lunatic fringe, etc. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
1963 Posted October 3, 2012 #3086 Share Posted October 3, 2012 little tinker.....lol when I was having a look for a pinky coloured bit of footage that I'd seen before...of a 'UFO crash' (which I found)....I stumbled on this,,, don't know if it's been posted in the thread yet... [media=] [/media] Hi Bee!...Sorry to be a party-pooper, but I started a thread on this 'Shady-Old-Coot's' story back in march.... http://www.unexplained-mysteries.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=223305&hl= I must admit that he had me convinced until I found the truth about the old man's reliability on Kevin Randle's site.... http://kevinrandle.blogspot.co.uk/2012/02/willingham-1978-interview.html made me feel pretty gullible , i'll tell you! Cheers Bee. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
1963 Posted October 3, 2012 #3087 Share Posted October 3, 2012 If I wanted to discredit UFOs completely, then I would flood the Internet with a bunch of fakes and disinformation, or just pay people to do it. It's the same principle as recommended by the CIA's Robertson Panel in 1953, which is to use unreliable sources like sensational tabloid newspapers to run all kinds of phony UFO stories like "I married an alien" or something like that. Nowadays, they could send in someone to post Internet blogs and stories about how they are in contact with aliens or have been visiting ET planets, which is the same type of thing George Adamski and other "contactees" were trying to sell in the 1950s. It's just a matter of adapting the same kinds of hoaxes and disinformation to a new medium. Ever notice that UFO conferences often get flooded with all kinds of loonies who then get their brief moments of glory on the evening news? It's the same thing again, and is designed to make the whole subject look kooky, bogus, lunatic fringe, etc. Wise words my friend! Cheers buddy. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheMacGuffin Posted October 3, 2012 #3088 Share Posted October 3, 2012 Hi Bee!...Sorry to be a party-pooper, but I started a thread on this 'Shady-Old-Coot's' story back in march.... made me feel pretty gullible , i'll tell you! I wouldn't feel too badly about it since we've all been caught by fakes now and again, and there are so many that it's hard to keep track of them all. Of course, the same methods are used to discredit those who might have genuine UFO information, which makes our task even harder. Every fake like this also sows more distrust and suspicion about the entire UFO subject in general, but the fact remains that this "Laredo crash" was always based on one questionable source. Once in a while, though, I still run into someone who argues that it really happened after all. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bee Posted October 3, 2012 #3089 Share Posted October 3, 2012 Hi Bee!...Sorry to be a party-pooper, but I started a thread on this 'Shady-Old-Coot's' story back in march.... http://www.unexplain...opic=223305&hl= I must admit that he had me convinced until I found the truth about the old man's reliability on Kevin Randle's site.... http://kevinrandle.b...-interview.html made me feel pretty gullible , i'll tell you! Cheers Bee. cheers 1963.....I hadn't formed an opinion on it one way or the other....will take a look at your links..... . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
S2F Posted October 3, 2012 #3090 Share Posted October 3, 2012 If I wanted to discredit UFOs completely, then I would flood the Internet with a bunch of fakes and disinformation, or just pay people to do it. It's the same principle as recommended by the CIA's Robertson Panel in 1953, which is to use unreliable sources like sensational tabloid newspapers to run all kinds of phony UFO stories like "I married an alien" or something like that. Nowadays, they could send in someone to post Internet blogs and stories about how they are in contact with aliens or have been visiting ET planets, which is the same type of thing George Adamski and other "contactees" were trying to sell in the 1950s. It's just a matter of adapting the same kinds of hoaxes and disinformation to a new medium. Ever notice that UFO conferences often get flooded with all kinds of loonies who then get their brief moments of glory on the evening news? It's the same thing again, and is designed to make the whole subject look kooky, bogus, lunatic fringe, etc. While that is certainly one interpretation I think that plain old storytelling and tomfoolery are just as likely to be the case with most hoaxes. People like spinning a good yarn and stringing people along with their story. Even the people who know the story is false often enjoy the charade. Why do you think fiction authors can so successfully ply their trade? As far as the 'loonies' at UFO conventions I think it is more about acceptance. It's a place where some can go to share a story (true or not) and in all likelihood find a connection with others with similar stories or events. That's how I see UFO conventions any way. More of a mingling place for those with common beliefs as opposed to some sort of information disclosure and dissemination event. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
1963 Posted October 3, 2012 #3091 Share Posted October 3, 2012 I wouldn't feel too badly about it since we've all been caught by fakes now and again, and there are so many that it's hard to keep track of them all. Of course, the same methods are used to discredit those who might have genuine UFO information, which makes our task even harder. Every fake like this also sows more distrust and suspicion about the entire UFO subject in general, but the fact remains that this "Laredo crash" was always based on one questionable source. Once in a while, though, I still run into someone who argues that it really happened after all. LOL!...Wish it had happened,..the old guy seemed so earnest and convincing, in a grandfatherly sort of way![The old Blaggard], And don't worry, I didn't feel too disheartened for 'too long', because I already know that the fact of life is that 'we all' like to think that we are not easily fooled,...but the truth is that sadly 'most of us' can be! Cheers buddy. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DONTEATUS Posted October 4, 2012 #3092 Share Posted October 4, 2012 Well we will never know right ? THats why the tale keeps going ,On & ON & ON ! Im in line to see another one and this Time Im going to Grab it with Both Hands ! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
S2F Posted October 4, 2012 #3093 Share Posted October 4, 2012 Well we will never know right ? THats why the tale keeps going ,On & ON & ON ! Im in line to see another one and this Time Im going to Grab it with Both Hands ! I'd recommend a good pair of gloves and definitely a solid pair of probe proof undies! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheMacGuffin Posted October 4, 2012 #3094 Share Posted October 4, 2012 Well we will never know right ? You think so? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bmk1245 Posted October 4, 2012 #3095 Share Posted October 4, 2012 [...]I need a little time to review and refresh my own memory from the early-mid 60s however the object, whatever it was, was reported as being at 30,000' (roughly 9 km) while the airliner was at 39,000' (just shy of 12 km.) It and the F-117 were looking down on it. The radar was looking up. I'm sure that means something but at the moment I can't think of what. I hate when that happens. I'm not quite sure what you are trying to say, nevertheless looking at radar data you can come up with dozens of UFOs ET spaceships (as some believers may claim) at any given time and place in the area. Data plot from just one radar (Ft. Worth) and time period 2200Z-2230Z (Jan 08, 2008): Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheMacGuffin Posted October 4, 2012 #3096 Share Posted October 4, 2012 I'm not quite sure what you are trying to say, nevertheless looking at radar data you can come up with dozens of UFOs ET spaceships (as some believers may claim) at any given time and place in the area. Data plot from just one radar (Ft. Worth) and time period 2200Z-2230Z (Jan 08, 2008): According to the "skeptics", every time there is a radar report of UFOs the equipment is malfunctioning and every time there is a radar visual report, like Stephenville, the witnesses are all lying or mistaken. They always have this standard list of "explanations" that they trot out for every single UFO report, although their real purpose is not to explain anything at all, but just muddy up the waters. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hazzard Posted October 4, 2012 #3097 Share Posted October 4, 2012 According to the "skeptics", every time there is a radar report of UFOs the equipment is malfunctioning and every time there is a radar visual report, like Stephenville, the witnesses are all lying or mistaken. They always have this standard list of "explanations" that they trot out for every single UFO report, although their real purpose is not to explain anything at all, but just muddy up the waters. Well, there are natural phenomenon (atmospheric plasmas etc) that act identical to what some people believe to be ET craft, we know this. We also know that radar alone can not tell if an object is under intelligent control,... and that radar is far from immune to errors. And we also know that eye-witnesses is known to make mistakes, that is why they are not enough in the world of science. As for slobbing more mud in the waters of UFOology - I think that the believers are doing just fine on that one, without those skeptical of the ETH. At least we are asking the question - if not, what else could it be? The believers are the ones with the "closed mind". . 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
zoser Posted October 4, 2012 Author #3098 Share Posted October 4, 2012 . They're still technically UFOs zoser..... I know...to keep everyone happy....let's say they were dark plasma something from Betelgeuse.... . I know; don't worry I haven't gone over to the dark side yet. I was just trying to be nice. That Crete shot is amazing; much more detailed than my shots I realise. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
+OverSword Posted October 4, 2012 #3099 Share Posted October 4, 2012 According to the "skeptics", every time there is a radar report of UFOs the equipment is malfunctioning and every time there is a radar visual report, like Stephenville, the witnesses are all lying or mistaken. There can be no doubt there are UFO's. The question is are they spacecraft piloted by inteligent beings from other planets. I say not. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
zoser Posted October 4, 2012 Author #3100 Share Posted October 4, 2012 There can be no doubt there are UFO's. The question is are they spacecraft piloted by inteligent beings from other planets. I say not. So are they some other intelligent life form endemic to this planet yet unknown to us ? There cannot be that many options surely? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
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 accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now