Anyone seen this picture?

[badeskov]

If we could find a real expert who everyone agreed did not have a particular ax to grind one way or another then that would be acceptable, but I just do not think that Badeskov or Chrizs fit that bill--not by a long shot. They are always on here to argue AGAINST any UFOs being ET, and do so 100% of the time.

So no, I cannot accept any of their views on the subject at face value, no more than they could ever accept mine.

Nobody is asking you to accept opinions or views. All you are asked is to look at the arguments put forth and the analysis that maybe the contained therein.

Cheers,

Badeskov

[ChrLzs]

Well, let's SEE one of your analyses. I've offered my expertise for appraisal and criticism. To date, no-one has disputed any of the information I've provided, some of which - like the haze issue - directly contradicts the Ritzmann 'analysis'.

I dispute it just because I know of your general bias and preconceived notions about UFOs and ETs, not because I ever claimed to be a photographic expert.

If EVER there was an admission of pure, unadulterated ad hominem, there it is.

Here is MacGuffin, an admitted NON-expert on this topic, disputing my information because .. he doesn't like me.

Note that MacGuffin somehow completely missed my request for one of his analyses - I've offered my expertise here and at ATS, and even offered to provide much more information, examples and cites if anyone thinks it is incorrect. I'd even be happy to debate Ritzmann's claims publicly..

MacGuffin can't get into that debate, of course, because he doesn't understand the topic - as he admits and demonstrated by his posting of a reduced, post-processed and jpeg compressed image and having the hide to tell the forum it was a raw image. And that's just one example of the misinformation he has posted on this thread.

Once again, there is absolutely no shame in not being good at something.. it is only shameful when you *pretend* you are, or when you dismiss other analyses purely on personal grounds.

MacGuffin deliberately introduced the topic of his purported analytical abilities by claiming he has an impressive collection of analyses, but when asked to show even one.. no. he doesn't even acknowledge the request, in the hope that no-one will notice.

I think you would happily spin and manipulate just about anything to accord with your general ideas on the subject. You're not alone in that. LOL

And I think it's the other way around. Thing is, I can point to the MacGuffin errors on this thread (and others), like the RAW image debacle, like his handwaving about the distance of the object. These SHOW that he is out of his depth. MacGuffin, however, has not been able to show any errors of mine - and if he tries, I will happily back my work up with cites and examples. I'm not afraid to show my analyses and debate them in detail. And I LOVE being shown to be wrong, as I learn stuff. Anyone see MacGuffin acknowledge his glaring error with the RAW file, and learn from it?

If we could find a real expert who everyone agreed did not have a particular ax to grind one way or another then that would be acceptable

Classic! And HOW, precisely will WE (is that the royal 'we', MacG???) determine who is a real expert, given that you are an admitted non-expert?

Could it be that you will only accept 'experts' who agree with your unsupported inferences about alien visitation?

I just do not think that Badeskov or Chrizs fit that bill--not by a long shot.

But you are a non-expert - so why is your opinion important, when discussing image analysis?

They are always on here to argue AGAINST any UFOs being ET, and do so 100% of the time.

You still don't get it, do you? Sciency type folks and genuine researchers always look at all the earthly possibilities, as these are KNOWN. Science moves forward by working through the knowns, not by throwing aliens or pink unicorns into the mix, until said aliens/unicorns are proven to be visiting. Sciency folk also use a science called photogrammetry, and an approach called LOGIC, to analyse images.. Researchers on this topic also know a raw image when we see it (or more accurately, when we DON'T see it - those who understand the concept of raw images will know perfectly what I mean)..

So no, I cannot accept any of their views on the subject at face value, no more than they could ever accept mine.

I'll accept anything anyone says that is correct.

Edited October 9, 2012 by Chrlzs

[TheMacGuffin]

Nobody is asking you to accept opinions or views. All you are asked is to look at the arguments put forth and the analysis that maybe the contained therein.

I have already explained why I do not accept them.

[TheMacGuffin]

Classic! And HOW, precisely will WE (is that the royal 'we', MacG???) determine who is a real expert, given that you are an admitted non-expert?

Could it be that you will only accept 'experts' who agree with your unsupported inferences about alien visitation?

But you are a non-expert - so why is your opinion important, when discussing image analysis?

You still don't get it, do you? Sciency type folks and genuine researchers always look at all the earthly possibilities, as these are KNOWN. Science moves forward by working through the knowns, not by throwing aliens or pink unicorns into the mix, until said aliens/unicorns are proven to be visiting. Sciency folk also use a science called photogrammetry, and an approach called LOGIC, to analyse images.. Researchers on this topic also know a raw image when we see it (or more accurately, when we DON'T see it - those who understand the concept of raw images will know perfectly what I mean)..

I'll accept anything anyone says that is correct.

I have already explained many times why I do not accept you as the neutral, unbiased expert that you claim to be. You are not simply looking for "the truth" but have an agenda--one is blatantly obvious.

Now you can also add that I don't like you and don't trust you, which is perfectly correct, but I think you can understand very well why that is. That's all I can say.

By the way, I have never at any time claimed to be a photographic expert, but I have written many analyses in my time, just not of pictures.

[quillius]

Chrlz,Boon and Euphorbia,

apologies for not responding to posts a few days back, I feel any response now is 'out of date' to an extent.

I would finish my participation to say at least Chrlz has provided an argument against the analysis itself, I for one do not have the time let alone the ability to scrutinise Chrlz analysis, but hope someone with a greater knowledge does so.

I can understand why McG makes the comments he does regarding trust, in the same way a majority of skeptics did not accept the analysis of a random internet poster (mainly due to the tone being in favour of true UFO), likewise many here do not wish to take the word of another random internet poster (Chrlz, with all due respect) whos tone/outcome favours a more mundane possibilty to the object.

Overall I agree there is probably little more to be said on this photo and its down to us all to think as we will......

[badeskov]

If we could find a real expert who everyone agreed did not have a particular ax to grind one way or another then that would be acceptable, but I just do not think that Badeskov or Chrizs fit that bill--not by a long shot.

I can only speak for myself, but I don't have an axe to grind. You just feel that I am grinding you axe because I point out fallacies.

They are always on here to argue AGAINST any UFOs being ET, and do so 100% of the time.

Again, I can only speak for myself, but that is simply incorrect. The fact of the matter is unfortunately that there is no evidence whatsoever that any UFOs have been of ET origin and that is what I am pointing out. If it so should happen that evidence did indeed come forth, I'd be more than happy to argue in favor of it. It just has to stand up to scrutiny and so far none has.

So no, I cannot accept any of their views on the subject at face value, no more than they could ever accept mine.

Fair enough.

Cheers,

Badeskov

[TheMacGuffin]

I can only speak for myself, but I don't have an axe to grind. You just feel that I am grinding you axe because I point out fallacies.

Again, I can only speak for myself, but that is simply incorrect. The fact of the matter is unfortunately that there is no evidence whatsoever that any UFOs have been of ET origin and that is what I am pointing out. If it so should happen that evidence did indeed come forth, I'd be more than happy to argue in favor of it. It just has to stand up to scrutiny and so far none has.

Now that I just plain don't believe, Badeskov. Not at all.

Could you possibly see yourself that way? No, I'm sorry, I don't believe that. At the very least I must have missed it if you had even shown even the slightest hint of being this open-minded, objective observer. I have never seen that even once, and I've read a lot of your posts.

Edited October 10, 2012 by TheMacGuffin

[Earl.Of.Trumps]

If we could find a real expert who everyone agreed did not have a particular ax to grind one way or another then that would be acceptable, but I just do not think that Badeskov or Chrizs fit that bill--not by a long shot. They are always on here to argue AGAINST any UFOs being ET, and do so 100% of the time.

So no, I cannot accept any of their views on the subject at face value, no more than they could ever accept mine.

[bIG GRIN]

you noticed that to, huh? LOL

and GEE,,, I wonder why!

[Earl.Of.Trumps]

I can only speak for myself, but I don't have an axe to grind. You just feel that I am grinding you axe because I point out fallacies.

Again, I can only speak for myself, but that is simply incorrect. The fact of the matter is unfortunately that there is no evidence whatsoever that any UFOs have been of ET origin and that is what I am pointing out. If it so should happen that evidence did indeed come forth, I'd be more than happy to argue in favor of it. It just has to stand up to scrutiny and so far none has.

Fair enough.

Cheers,

Badeskov

If convincing evidences ever did come along as to an ET connection to UFO's, you'd be out of a job LOL

[badeskov]

Now that I just plain don't believe, Badeskov. Not at all.

Could you possibly see yourself that way? No, I'm sorry, I don't believe that. At the very least I must of missed it if you had even shown even the slightest hint of being this open-minded, objective observer. I have never seen that even once, and I've read a lot of your posts.

Frankly, I couldn't care less what you believe.

But the fact of the matter is that the evidence of ET visitation is non-existent and that is the basis from which I discuss. The day when (if ever) that changes the discussion will change.

Cheers,

Badeskov

If convincing evidences ever did come along as to an ET connection to UFO's, you'd be out of a job LOL

How so?

Cheers,

Badeskov

[1963]

Chrlz,Boon and Euphorbia,

apologies for not responding to posts a few days back, I feel any response now is 'out of date' to an extent.

I would finish my participation to say at least Chrlz has provided an argument against the analysis itself, I for one do not have the time let alone the ability to scrutinise Chrlz analysis, but hope someone with a greater knowledge does so.

I can understand why McG makes the comments he does regarding trust, in the same way a majority of skeptics did not accept the analysis of a random internet poster (mainly due to the tone being in favour of true UFO), likewise many here do not wish to take the word of another random internet poster (Chrlz, with all due respect) whos tone/outcome favours a more mundane possibilty to the object.

Overall I agree there is probably little more to be said on this photo and its down to us all to think as we will......

Excellent post!...Once again , showing yourself to be 'the voice of reason' Quillius!

Cheers buddy.

[TheMacGuffin]

Frankly, I couldn't care less what you believe.

But the fact of the matter is that the evidence of ET visitation is non-existent and that is the basis from which I discuss. The day when (if ever) that changes the discussion will change.

You dig at me a lot, and I'm not timid about responding, so you care that much. What you're saying about evidence is totally false, too, although you do ignore or dismiss all of it.

[Jackofalltrades]

@ OP

To me it seem's fake.... it seem's that it was cloned into the photo (in my opinion)

Seeing as it is a clear blue sky I would of thought they would of noticed something like that in the sky at the time of taking the photo

[S2F]

You dig at me a lot, and I'm not timid about responding, so you care that much. What you're saying about evidence is totally false, too, although you do ignore or dismiss all of it.

Having read enough of badeskov's posts over the years I can tell you that he only cares about how the evidence is portrayed and interpreted (as well as whether or not something constitutes as evidence in the first place). Your interpretations aren't nearly as solid as you seem to believe, hence the 'rivalry'. Your polarizing view over something as simple as a difference of opinion is telling however. With you it seems to be 'us versus them' which is practically the definition of bias. Be careful or you may become that which you rail so fervently against... if you haven't already.

[quillius]

Excellent post!...Once again , showing yourself to be 'the voice of reason' Quillius!

Cheers buddy.

Thanks 1963, although you seem to always add a nice 'balance' to any heavily one sided debates,

[ChrLzs]

Wouldn't it be luverly if the correctness and verifiability of the information one posted was the only criteria for whether someone should be listened to.. you could even add their willingness to debate and back up their comments with cites and examples - I find that quite a good guide..

Anyone here who wishes to debate the facts and analyses, such as they stand?

And may I ask of the ufo=et crowd, who would you trust as an analyst, and why? Do such analysts post here and properly debate their information, and if not, why not?

BTW, I'd be quite happy to go through the Ritzmann analysis point by point if anyone thinks that would help, but it seems that interest has now dropped off both here and at ATS.

[synchronomy]

Wouldn't it be luverly if the correctness and verifiability of the information one posted was the only criteria for whether someone should be listened to.. you could even add their willingness to debate and back up their comments with cites and examples - I find that quite a good guide..

Anyone here who wishes to debate the facts and analyses, such as they stand?

And may I ask of the ufo=et crowd, who would you trust as an analyst, and why? Do such analysts post here and properly debate their information, and if not, why not?

BTW, I'd be quite happy to go through the Ritzmann analysis point by point if anyone thinks that would help, but it seems that interest has now dropped off both here and at ATS.

Personally, I feel this photo has been analyzed sufficiently to conclude it's impossible to determine what that object is. Although I am part of the "ET crowd", I don't blindly equate UFO's to ETV's. I keep an open mind, but it seems to me all the UFO pictures and video's I have seen over many years now are either debunked or are found to be inconclusive.

[quillius]

Personally, I feel this photo has been analyzed sufficiently to conclude it's impossible to determine what that object is. Although I am part of the "ET crowd", I don't blindly equate UFO's to ETV's. I keep an open mind, but it seems to me all the UFO pictures and video's I have seen over many years now are either debunked or are found to be inconclusive.

I agree with the most part, and would add that any videos or pictures would always be inconclusive at least as far as scientific evidence goes

[synchronomy]

I agree with the most part, and would add that any videos or pictures would always be inconclusive at least as far as scientific evidence goes

Within the "inconclusive" category, there's enough of them that I still think "maybe".

[quillius]

Within the "inconclusive" category, there's enough of them that I still think "maybe".

that makes two of us

Edited October 10, 2012 by quillius

[Abramelin]

Another idea: it's a pearl inside a ring on which edge a couple of gems are set, and the whole thing as a pendant on a necklace. The only part of the necklace that's still visible (= not erased) is the shackle:

Go to Google Images, and enter:

pearl setting 'inside the ring" necklace

or:

pearl setting 'inside the ring" necklace silver

https://www.google.nl/search?q=pearl+setting+%27inside+the+ring%22+necklace+silver&oe=utf-8&aq=t&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&client=firefox-a&um=1&ie=UTF-8&hl=nl&tbm=isch&source=og&sa=N&tab=wi&ei=bX91UOP7OoO40QW3zYGACw&biw=1010&bih=608&sei=cH91UK32O-mq0AW_jYGQDQ

Just AN example:

http://www.illuminatajewels.com/uk/catalog/product/gallery/id/116/image/531/

[synchronomy]

Just for poops and chuckles I did a Google image search on a close up of the UFO in the goat picture...

I got one image of a set of keys on a blue background.

And I got 15 images of modern aircraft against a blue sky.

Conclusion: It's a grey/blue object with bright reflections on a blue-sky background.

edit: It seems unusual that I didn't get a return on the original image, considering I've seen it blasted all over the internet since it first appeared.

Edited October 10, 2012 by synchronomy

[White Unicorn]

Another idea: it's a pearl inside a ring on which edge a couple of gems are set, and the whole thing as a pendant on a necklace. The only part of the necklace that's still visible (= not erased) is the shackle:

Go to Google Images, and enter:

pearl setting 'inside the ring" necklace

or:

pearl setting 'inside the ring" necklace silver

https://www.google.n...2O-mq0AW_jYGQDQ

Just AN example:

http://www.illuminat.../116/image/531/

Conclusion all UFO photos are just a pearl thrown to the swine? LOL

[tipotep]

that makes two of us

Better make that the 3 of us , I'm not sold on this particular item being ET , the claims for and against are all valid due to the inconclusive nature of the picture .

Im happy to say that it's a " maybe " ( until or if more information comes to light )

TiP.

[TheMacGuffin]

Having read enough of badeskov's posts over the years I can tell you that he only cares about how the evidence is portrayed and interpreted (as well as whether or not something constitutes as evidence in the first place).

I don't think that's true at all. At least it's not my experience--not in any way.