quillius Posted November 2, 2012 #776 Share Posted November 2, 2012 Hazz/Debunker have been trotting out the same stuff for SEVEN years...they aren't likely to change any time soon..... . typo maybe? 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
quillius Posted November 2, 2012 #777 Share Posted November 2, 2012 Criticising someone for offering Opinions and not being very scientific? Irony? I didnt see the criticism in Bee's post 747? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
quillius Posted November 2, 2012 #778 Share Posted November 2, 2012 Re: the bolded part. In my honest opinion, this is not a movie theater or like watching a movie on the TV, this is a discussion forum and the avoidance of in depth discussion is a very obvious indication of the depth of detail each point of discussion holds, or lack of same. Sadly. If there really was some detail and depth that could be substantiated, I would think the proponent would be more than happy to keep the discussion on point. However, that is not the case and pretty much outlines the lack of actual data/weight to a given case. In that sense, for some quantity has turned into quality, which I find a rather shallow approach. Cheers, Badeskov hello Badeskov, in response to the first bolded: or that the constant digging at the opposing view doesnt allow for such discussion on detail to flow..... second bolded: thats also suggesting teh avoidance (or derailment) is being caused by the ETH proponents only...which I personally dont agree with Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
quillius Posted November 2, 2012 #779 Share Posted November 2, 2012 Thank you my friend, very kind of you to say. There is some interesting information presented, and it seems they are not getting the attention they may deserve. can be difficult during a p******g contest Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bmk1245 Posted November 2, 2012 #780 Share Posted November 2, 2012 The thing that Stubbs can claim that no other person can is that he has all the footage and has laboriously combed through it in his painstaking research. [...] "Kid watches cartoons. Mother enters the room: 'For the last time, turn off TV!' 'Mooom... I'm doing research!' " Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JimOberg Posted November 2, 2012 #781 Share Posted November 2, 2012 After all it's blatantly obvious that they are stars right? What else could the be? Zoser, this kind of 'reasoning' is what I call 'argument from ignorance'. It is essentially saying, " I in my limited knowledge and understanding can't think of any other alternatives, so that proves to my satisfaction that there CAN'T be any." Lights on the ground [or on the ocean surface] can look like lights in the sky [stars] if you don't know the direction the camera is pointed or even the day-night time. That's why it's critically important to know the date/time of a video and other contextual particulars.Without it the video is worse than useless as evidence for anything except the incompetence of the pro-UFO argument. It's why I keep hassling you over such basic data, such as whether it's daytime or nighttime in the STS-48 and STS-75 videos which YOU yourself posted as evidence for anomalous phenomena, a SIMPLE question which you STILL strenuously avoid answering. Why? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
zoser Posted November 2, 2012 #782 Share Posted November 2, 2012 "Kid watches cartoons. Mother enters the room: 'For the last time, turn off TV!' 'Mooom... I'm doing research!' " Say what? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
zoser Posted November 2, 2012 #783 Share Posted November 2, 2012 Zoser, this kind of 'reasoning' is what I call 'argument from ignorance'. It is essentially saying, " I in my limited knowledge and understanding can't think of any other alternatives, so that proves to my satisfaction that there CAN'T be any." Lights on the ground [or on the ocean surface] can look like lights in the sky [stars] if you don't know the direction the camera is pointed or even the day-night time. That's why it's critically important to know the date/time of a video and other contextual particulars.Without it the video is worse than useless as evidence for anything except the incompetence of the pro-UFO argument. It's why I keep hassling you over such basic data, such as whether it's daytime or nighttime in the STS-48 and STS-75 videos which YOU yourself posted as evidence for anomalous phenomena, a SIMPLE question which you STILL strenuously avoid answering. Why? I think you are jumping to conclusions regarding my assertions. I'm not actually making any regarding the footage. My comment was aimed at the disarmingly quick manner in which the crew member asserts that the object is a star. It seems to be coming from a posture of defense. That raises suspicions. He doesn't say "I don't know what that was" which to me would have been much more honest. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JimOberg Posted November 2, 2012 #784 Share Posted November 2, 2012 I think you are jumping to conclusions regarding my assertions. I don't think so. Your argument seems to be that there are fundamentally unexplainable visual phenomena going on, and you provide candidate examples -- but don't take the required steps to establish the videos even ARE anomalous. And it is growing more noticeable to everyone that for fundamental, reasonable questions -- is it day or night on the videos you posted? -- you duck and evade. So questions of YOUR motivation can naturally arise. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Space Commander Travis Posted November 2, 2012 #785 Share Posted November 2, 2012 Hazz/Debunker has been trotting out the same stuff for SEVEN years...there isn't likely to be a change any time soon..... And the difference from those who see ET everywhere is ...... ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
zoser Posted November 2, 2012 #786 Share Posted November 2, 2012 I don't think so. Your argument seems to be that there are fundamentally unexplainable visual phenomena going on, and you provide candidate examples -- but don't take the required steps to establish the videos even ARE anomalous. And it is growing more noticeable to everyone that for fundamental, reasonable questions -- is it day or night on the videos you posted? -- you duck and evade. So questions of YOUR motivation can naturally arise. How can anyone not think that there is unexplainable visual phenomena going on? Have you reviewed the Martyn Stubbs interview yet? 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
quillius Posted November 2, 2012 #787 Share Posted November 2, 2012 I don't think so. Your argument seems to be that there are fundamentally unexplainable visual phenomena going on, and you provide candidate examples -- but don't take the required steps to establish the videos even ARE anomalous. And it is growing more noticeable to everyone that for fundamental, reasonable questions -- is it day or night on the videos you posted? -- you duck and evade. So questions of YOUR motivation can naturally arise. Hello Jim, do you think that the bolded part is not the case then? (without limiting the question to some of the 'photos/videos' in this thread) 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
booNyzarC Posted November 2, 2012 #788 Share Posted November 2, 2012 I think you are jumping to conclusions regarding my assertions. I'm not actually making any regarding the footage. My comment was aimed at the disarmingly quick manner in which the crew member asserts that the object is a star. It seems to be coming from a posture of defense. That raises suspicions. He doesn't say "I don't know what that was" which to me would have been much more honest. For you it would be an honest response to say "I don't know what that was" because you honestly don't know what it was. For him it is an honest response to say that "the lights moving by in the background are either isolated lights on the ground or stars, I think likely the latter," because he honestly was a mission specialist on board at the time, was directly involved in the deployment of PAM-STU, and they filmed the satellite for days; one result of which is that he would have first hand familiarity with the kind of footage captured. After spending several days filming something like that and having the benefit of observing it with the naked eye, he's in a much better position to identify what the camera had picked up, don't you think? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Space Commander Travis Posted November 2, 2012 #789 Share Posted November 2, 2012 I didnt see the criticism in Bee's post 747? "a vague OPINION.." and "not very scientific is it?" isn't a criticism, then? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
quillius Posted November 2, 2012 #790 Share Posted November 2, 2012 "a vague OPINION.." and "not very scientific is it?" isn't a criticism, then? I didnt think so, I thought it was merely highlighting a fact - that is was an 'opinion' and by default its therefore non scientific she didnt say it was a bad thing 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hazzard Posted November 2, 2012 #791 Share Posted November 2, 2012 (edited) And the difference from those who see ET everywhere is ...... ? The difference between me and people like bee and zoser is that they are doing their best to squize ET into the UFO phenomenon. I am doing this by falcification, always have. Im not reading about, or watching a UFO on youtube thinking - That must be ET in origin. Im thinking - What else could it be, besides ET? Edited November 2, 2012 by Hazzard Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
quillius Posted November 2, 2012 #792 Share Posted November 2, 2012 The difference between me and people like bee and zoser is that they are doing their best to squize ET into the UFO phenomenon. I am doing this by falcification, always have. Im not reading about, or watching a UFO on youtube thinking - That must be ET in origin. Im thinking - What else could it be, besides ET? I think 747 may have been defending you suggesting there is no difference Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
zoser Posted November 2, 2012 #793 Share Posted November 2, 2012 For you it would be an honest response to say "I don't know what that was" because you honestly don't know what it was. For him it is an honest response to say that "the lights moving by in the background are either isolated lights on the ground or stars, I think likely the latter," because he honestly was a mission specialist on board at the time, was directly involved in the deployment of PAM-STU, and they filmed the satellite for days; one result of which is that he would have first hand familiarity with the kind of footage captured. After spending several days filming something like that and having the benefit of observing it with the naked eye, he's in a much better position to identify what the camera had picked up, don't you think? He made an instant response not a considered response. The dangers of this should be obvious. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
zoser Posted November 2, 2012 #794 Share Posted November 2, 2012 The difference between me and people like bee and zoser is that they are doing their best to squize ET into the UFO phenomenon. I am doing this by falcification, always have. Im not reading about, or watching a UFO on youtube thinking - That must be ET in origin. Im thinking - What else could it be, besides ET? To clarify my position on this I see two kinds of data. 1) The testimony from crew members, astronauts and cosmonauts particularly from the Gemini and Apollo missions combined with several early unexplained photos suggest to me that there has been an ET phenomena at play. MacG has uploaded many pictures that refer to this. 2) The more recent footage from space shuttle and ISS missions where we have particle or spherical like phenomena often in swarms but not always suggests to me that there is an unknown phenomena at play. Some of this may or may not be ET related. The key thing is that it is unknown. Martyn Stubbs from what I have seen and heard leads the field into this research being the custodian of a vast amount of footage and the means to analyse it. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
booNyzarC Posted November 2, 2012 #795 Share Posted November 2, 2012 He made an instant response not a considered response. The dangers of this should be obvious. How exactly did you come to that conclusion? Because it took you an instant to read it? How do you know how much time he spent considering it? But okay. Let's assume that after watching it he instantly recognized the lights in question as being extremely similar to other lights he has observed previously, probably hundreds if not thousands of times during his 3 missions which totaled almost 23 days of cumulative time in space. In addition to this time up there, how much time did he spend in his career following up with the type of footage that was collected for mission briefings and the like? Just how familiar with such footage do you suppose someone would be after that, and how difficult would it be for him to look at it and quickly identify the likely source of it? Use your head zoser. He's not seeing this footage for the first time. He was there when it was filmed. He was up there a few times and is familiar with the kind of footage that is captured. He is providing tantalizing testimony about his observations from the perspective of a first hand witness. Why are you discounting his testimony? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bee Posted November 2, 2012 #796 Share Posted November 2, 2012 And the difference from those who see ET everywhere is ...... ? setting aside the sly dig.....'who see ET everywhere'..... we trot out lots of different stuff.......lots of different cases/info/angles etc etc... hazz/debunker just go...nah nah nah...no no nah nah.....Exhibit A and nothing else will do. (metaphorically stamping feet and pouting)...lol . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hazzard Posted November 2, 2012 #797 Share Posted November 2, 2012 I think 747 may have been defending you suggesting there is no difference Thank you for that, quillius,... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hazzard Posted November 2, 2012 #798 Share Posted November 2, 2012 setting aside the sly dig.....'who see ET everywhere'..... we trot out lots of different stuff.... ...lots of different cases/info/angles etc etc... hazz/debunker just go...nah nah nah...no no nah nah.....Exhibit A and nothing else will do. (metaphorically stamping feet and pouting)...lol . Hey, thats me, I need science to tell me that any of this is real. Belief and faith only goes so far. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
quillius Posted November 2, 2012 #799 Share Posted November 2, 2012 Thank you for that, quillius,... my pleasure Hazz Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
zoser Posted November 2, 2012 #800 Share Posted November 2, 2012 Hey, thats me, I need science to tell me that any of this is real. Belief and faith only goes so far. Hey, thats me, I need science to tell me that any of this is real. Belief and faith only goes so far. Which science? Whose science? The institutional science or common sense science. The two are not necessarily the same. 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