here are the UFO's

[Sweetpumper]

What's weird is sky just completely dropped this subject and got sucked into 911 conspiracy threads and has been there since.

[zoser]

What's weird is sky just completely dropped this subject and got sucked into 911 conspiracy threads and has been there since.

I know a guy who got sucked into that and literally took over his life. Never saw a great deal in it myself. Convinced in the end he was being hunted by unknown MIB.

[DONTEATUS]

Come on now "Z" you believe the MIB`s & That the 9/11 C.T`s are on to some government throw down, Ive read your post !

Don't go getting all whambbbley Bambley on us now ! And Yes there is Smoke sometimes without Fire ! Skyeagle Can Prove it !

just be careful what your definition of smoke is !

[Hazzard]

What's weird is sky just completely dropped this subject and got sucked into 911 conspiracy threads and has been there since.

Not that weird if you remember how it all ended,... and Sky is doing a spectacular job over there I must say.

[Sweetpumper]

I guess I don't get the obsession, having to find a subject to, well, obsess about.

[Sir Wearer of Hats]

Depends what you feel the least likely option is.

A pilot forging an image and filing a UFO report to claim publicity when the Aviation authorities stigmatise such actions.

That is far less feasible than saying he snapped an image of a UFO.

I claim BS on that. Occam's Razor falls on the side of the believers here. It's not a blanket tool for skeptics. It never was.

Lets take that claim and disect it:

Pilot Fakes it: Requires us to believe that he had a camera, that he had time to take a photo, that he published it despite knowing the regulations about such things, did it for the hell of it anyway - that's four assumptions. That's a lot of leaps i have to agree, but.....

Aliens: Requires us to believe that he had a camera, that he had time to take a photo, that he published it despite knowing the regulations about such things, did it for the hell of it anyway, that is was an alien craft, that despite their abilities to avoid being photographed the aliens got snapped. That's Six!

Occam strikes again

[DONTEATUS]

Puts the Tim Foil hat on really down & Low Its going to be a Long Week in here !

[psyche101]

Easy if you have researched the subject and analysed reports over the last 70 years. Not the case however if you choose to walk around with a blindfold on.

I know I have been looking at the phenomena far, far longer than you, and Youtube has not been around for 70 years, so your informations is heavily restricted. By personal preference I would guess.

No it isn't. You have to prove why a pilot would willfully deceive. Not feasible unless some major gain involved. So what was the gain?

The EXIF Data shows that he did fabricate elements of his claim. 7 seconds apart remember? Why did he fabricate that element, and why should the rest of his claim be considered as accurate?

Chrlz outlined the possible major gains very well thank you. Please read his post #105.

Generally the hoaxes are very easy to discern. The laser pen iand CGI are the latest trend. I can list in 20 minutes 100 unsolved well known cases. Well supported by military personnel, police, pilots, and all manner of witnesses. DYOR.

That is not the case at all, as I have illustrated repeatedly with the Buzz Aldrim claim, we cannot even rely on the Science Channel, as they have been shown to fabricate claims of Aliens spaceships for the sake of ratings gain.

You mean Occams Razor? The simplest explanation holds validity and the burden of proof shifts to the more complicated hypothesis. All depends on how complicated you are doesn't it? If you are into conspiracy theories then no doubt you will like the idea of pilots faking images.

Conspiracy theorists also comprise of Pilots for 911 Truth. They feel Pilots tell the truth and the Government lies, so those conspiracy theorists would disagree with you on faking images.

The simplest explanation is a bug squashed on the window, not a Ghost Rocket, do you read what you type? You are saying a Ghost Rocket is the simplest explanation, yet you are making up the criteria for Ghost Rockets as you go along. Whilst you consider yourself a "custodian" all you have done is provide yet another reason to laugh.

Motive is everything. People do these things for reasons. Money, fame, recognition being prime candidates. To my knowledge he gained neither. Why would he do it? Put a convincing case forward if you can.

To your knowledge makes a red splotch an alien spaceship by simplest reasoning does it?

As mentioned, Chrlz put forward many interesting possibilities.

A photo, and a testimony. All you have is a conspiracy theory.

No, the motion blur does not match your description, but it can explain the splotch that has been described as everything from a squashed mosquito to Wonder Woman. The motion blur can only be explained by a stationary subject, you fail to address, or explain that major anomaly in the Ghost Rocket musing.

When someone denies all cases as is the norm here, I'm afraid it becomes cynicism. If you were really interested in the truth you would take a neutral stance. Think on that if you would.

So you are a cynic because you cannot accept the only explanation for the blurring? Do you ever feel you might start thinking on these major anomalies that quash your childish ideals?

Personally, I would use another term, but that is just me I suppose.

An image is no anecdote. We all see the same thing. A long object where the swirling indicates fast upward movement. Your classification is bias. Nothing more. More evidence of cynicism too.

There is no swirling. Why can you not illustrate your claim, yet the uniform blur is easy to define?

Yes I am open minded and I have not discounted his picture or his testimony? Have you? Who is really being biased?

You are being biased by making up stuff that suits the fantasy you feel a need to push, I assume for personal validation. You are not open minded, and you have not addressed the uniform blur, or the EXIF data, both of which challenge the version of events that you have chosen to support.

Why do you refuse to put the testimony next to the data, and so much as attempt to explain the differences?

[psyche101]

Are you talking about the same Hastings who rants about UFO investigations around nuclear sites?

Different guys, the Pilot in this Photo instance is David Hastings, the crackpot who sees UFO's over every military base is Robert Hastings.

Edited October 29, 2013 by psyche101

[psyche101]

Well, I can offer a rather harsh critique (of that phone)... Seriously, this was late morning (ie reasonable daylight) and those pics are what that IPhone turned in? They are motion blurred and probably out of focus too, the colors are dark and muddy, there is horrific noise and the images look underexposed. I'd need to see the originals & exif, but were they taken from inside a car with tinted windows or something? Certainly underexposure will darken and eventually take colours down to a deep grey or black...

As for those shapes, well the motion/o-o-f blurring can combine to create shapes that will depend on:

- the direction and 'vector shape' of the motion of the camera

- the direction and vector shape of the motion of the object/s

- the amount by which it is out of focus

- the nature of the bokeh of the lens (ie how it renders things that are blurred)

- the shape of the camera's internal aperture

.. but, to be honest, these don't look much like balloons. I note from your description that you viewed these images after the event - is there any possibility that you might have captured birds or nearby insects instead? Bear in mind that close insects tend to be pretty much invisible to your eye when you are focusing on more distant happenings.

Anyway, I think those images are much more interesting and worthy of comment than a lot of the dreck that gets dredged up... But the moral of the story is - buy a better camera and have it with you all the time. I do (well almost always)...

My ufo's always get quite clearly resolved and then .. identified.

Gidday Mate!!

Needs more likes than I am capable of giving.

WELL DONE!!!! I am more than suitably impressed. And as to your suspicion, very good, not birds or insects, fruit bats. Pretty darn close on the birds there I reckon. yet as they were not defined as either, the woo woo element would call them "unexplained" and they were until this point, but an alien starship could not be further from the actual answer.

See folks, a good camera expert can tell you what is happening. Now I have a confession to make, they were not balloons, they were fruit bats, about 6PM at night. And my phone take really lousy pics, not sure why, my wifes phone takes much better ones.

Chrlz called it spot on, not morning, not balloons, he said probably bird, and it was a bat - very comparable IMHO. I wanted to illustrate just how reliable photo analysis is, and have a look. Not a single person here except myself knew the details, and yet the photo holds enough data to illustrate more facts to an expert then one might imagine. Blurry horrible pics, with no detail, and had Chrlz been given the EXIF data, he would have resolved this even sooner. Like the strange time markings on the EXIF data with the Hastings splotch.

So does Chrlz have the right details with regards to the Red Ghost Rocket? I really do not know, but I do know where I would place a bet given the two options.

Does the ETH, and or Zoser, custodian of woo, have such in depth analysis, and such a track record for accuracy?

Nope.

Again, my thanks Chrlz, and I apologise in advance to all who participated in this little experiment for my deception. But I feel it did illustrate than when it comes down to it, these photo guys are pretty darn sharp. You cannot trip up the truth.

Cheers.

PS If further information is required regarding the skill Chrlz just illustrated, I will post the EXIF data on request, confirming Chrlz' analysis.

Edited October 29, 2013 by psyche101

[psyche101]

For a pilot, a UFO is the perfect answer/excuse for almost anything:

- unauthorised speed/maneuvers and even use of firearms without authorisation

- excess use of fuel

- getting lost or disoriented

- going into prohibited airspace

- making a significant mistake that is noticed by passengers or air traffic controllers/systems

- helping their bosses justify additional spending on aircraft/defense systems (this especially back in the 40's thru 90's)

not to mention the other genuine misidentifications and perception issues that come into play (one day I'll start a thread on this, and I'll be arguing that pilots/law enforcement/security folks are probably the worst possible potential witnesses...)

Claiming a UFO is almost a 'victimless' crime - it cannot be easily disputed, no-one gets hurt, the pilot may get out of trouble... Problem is that the claimant might get ridiculed because, rightly or wrongly, it is *known* as a very convenient excuse.

Anyway, it shouldn't be all that long before all aircraft are fitted with video systems to record their forward view at all times - even now you could do this quite cheaply with a little action camera and just rewrite over the data after each uneventful trip... And I'm betting that these pilot ufo claims will go even further down than they already have....

Hi Mate

Nice post, this should be sticky, Pilots are people too, some people think they cannot be corrupted, but I know one or two that has loaned money from me and never repaid it, Salt of the earth my foot! Ordinary decaying matter like the rest of us!

Cheers.

[psyche101]

Check out the TT thread. The majority of them are not anecdotes.

Again the plural of anecdote is not data.

Easy to say walking around with a blindfold on. Let them wait.

So they spend hours on UM why? Just in case? If they were that confident they would not be here.

As I have explained to you, you seem to think you are challenging renowned knowledge, you are not. You are merely soiling it. Some elements could be considered intellectual vandalism.

Think about it.

Cannot possibly reply after reading what scowl replied, funniest damn thing I have read all week. Damn I like Scowls posts.

[psyche101]

70 years of visiting earth and still they still don't establish contact resuming to only anal probing,during the night

I am very disappointed with their behaviours.

And not a single alien candy bar wrapper, or an alien coke can.

[sinewave]

Check out the TT thread. The majority of them are not anecdotes.

Easy to say walking around with a blindfold on. Let them wait.

So they spend hours on UM why? Just in case? If they were that confident they would not be here.

Think about it.

Not anecdotes? So there some hard evidence?

[psyche101]

Maybe you had the wrong guys contributing to the thread? How new and insightful can a collection of like minded skeptics actually be?

Yeah, it's not your thing - math in there. People actually tried to see just how much of these claims stacked up. None it seemed. But we did learn some awesome history, that stuff you avoid - textbooks and things.

What ya got there? Numbers?

[sinewave]

Different guys, the Pilot in this Photo instance is David Hastings, the crackpot who sees UFO's over every military base is Robert Hastings.

Got it! Thanks. It is hard to keep them all straight.

[psyche101]

Back to the old argument. If something is out of the realm of human creation and natural planetary phenomena then what are the options?

Are you saying that you have defined the absolute limit surrounding the current realm of human creation?

And

Are you stating that you personally have every single natural phenomena that exists catalogued and understood?

Have you even seen and recognised a planet?

How do you figure you can deny these things, when you say throw away your textbooks? Do you not have to read textbooks to understand these things well enough to decide the viability of them?

Do you even understand that which you post?

Edited October 29, 2013 by psyche101

[psyche101]

Got it! Thanks. It is hard to keep them all straight.

Cheers mate, Lord knows there is enough of them! The Moore's from Roswell fame often get me.

[sinewave]

Indeed. I learned plenty of new and interesting things from the BE threads (over 3000 pages) sadly irrefutable evidence of ET visitation was not one of them.

Those threads were truly epic. Great discussions and pitched battles. I especially enjoyed the input from the technical experts like Badeskov and MID. You did an excellent job setting the threads up and keeping them on task.

Edited October 29, 2013 by sinewave

[sinewave]

What's weird is sky just completely dropped this subject and got sucked into 911 conspiracy threads and has been there since.

I liked Sky. He's a descent guy and I respect that. We just did not see eye to eye on this UFO stuff.

[Esoteric Toad]

Back to the old argument. If something is out of the realm of human creation and natural planetary phenomena then what are the options?

Until you can prove that they are not either of those they still are simply unknown. The logic you are using seems to indicate that our knowledge and ability to discover new phenomena is frozen in the moment. Instead of labeling something as unknown there seems to be a desire to jump to the irrational conclusion that it MUST be alien in nature. History shows that many things once thought magical and unknowable were anything but.

Edited for spelling.

Edited October 29, 2013 by Esoteric Toad

[psyche101]

Puts the Tim Foil hat on really down & Low Its going to be a Long Week in here !

I liked Sky. He's a descent guy and I respect that. We just did not see eye to eye on this UFO stuff.

Hear hear!

[ChrLzs]

You sneaky, dirty cheater, psyche!! And I say that in the nicest possible way - that was very cleverly done, and I salute you, Sir!

I really like what you did there - it showed up some excellent points. And yes, you really had me with your description of it being mid morning - but that just did not gel at all with the image quality. There I was suckered in by testimony.. Gee, maybe there's a lesson there for someone in particular on this thread. After all, I KNOW photography really well (unlike someone in particular), and yet I was prepared to take your words at face value despite them not adding up. Now, if I didn't know photography (like someone in particular), and was also desperately wanting more evidence for my obsessive belief (like someone in particular), I'd just take your testimony as dead accurate.

By the way, may I ask a simple question of the forum - has anyone else noticed that a certain someone who is always asking for motivations, is *again* ignoring the points about reasons why pilots might not be the best witnesses? He's done that several times before, along with ignoring lists of potential reasons for flawed witness testimony from the general public. It seems it is his final debating tactic when all else has failed - and if he lets that one go, it's all over...

BTW, if I'm wrong about those motivations not being addressed, can someone other than the person concerned (who is on my ignore list) please quote where he has addressed them (ALL of them) in proper detail?

[psyche101]

You sneaky, dirty cheater, psyche!! And I say that in the nicest possible way - that was very cleverly done, and I salute you, Sir!

I really like what you did there - it showed up some excellent points. And yes, you really had me with your description of it being mid morning - but that just did not gel at all with the image quality. There I was suckered in by testimony.. Gee, maybe there's a lesson there for someone in particular on this thread. After all, I KNOW photography really well (unlike someone in particular), and yet I was prepared to take your words at face value despite them not adding up. Now, if I didn't know photography (like someone in particular), and was also desperately wanting more evidence for my obsessive belief (like someone in particular), I'd just take your testimony as dead accurate.

By the way, may I ask a simple question of the forum - has anyone else noticed that a certain someone who is always asking for motivations, is *again* ignoring the points about reasons why pilots might not be the best witnesses? He's done that several times before, along with ignoring lists of potential reasons for flawed witness testimony from the general public. It seems it is his final debating tactic when all else has failed - and if he lets that one go, it's all over...

BTW, if I'm wrong about those motivations not being addressed, can someone other than the person concerned (who is on my ignore list) please quote where he has addressed them (ALL of them) in proper detail?

Gidday Mate

I knew you would forgive me, but then again, I had faith in your skills, I was elated to see you pull the right story from the wrong photo.

Had I said, I witnessed a delta shaped squadron of UFO's with the same faceless story, I would be Zosers best mate right now. A good illustration as to why we should not accept things at face value. However, you proved that you do KNOW photography, and called it spot on, I am more than happy to allow the distinction between bat and bird, yet people who KNOW we are being visited by aliens claim to be experts in something they have never seen, touched, or have any experience with. And that is how a light in the sky becomes an alien starship, the same way a Bat can be Balloons.

The testimony was convincing I thought, although had you seen my face whilst I was typing, you would have caught on The Cheshire cat would have been jealous.

And motivations. Did I have motivation to lie? Yes I did! I was quite confident that the real story would eventually come out, if not I expected the claim attached to the photo to raise questions, and it did, the impressive part is you were able to answer those questions to what I would consider about 90% accuracy. I was motivated to see the outcome of the experiment. Motivations are not always cut and dry. Being individuals, different things tickle different fancies. And I would not be the first to experiment to gauge reactions. Our resident recalcitrant can only achieve the outcomes he does by cherry picking. He too has motivation, and it seems less than honest considering that he always tries to bias the debate by telling people what sources to consider, and to outright avoid others, whereas with the skeptical approach we bring it all to the table and sort through the mess. For every credibility gap there is a gullibility gap.

Again, well done, I am not only impressed, but we now have a working example to illustrate that your skill is indeed reliable. With the Skeptics and believers on a level playing field, the skeptical process of elimination prevailed, the pooling of resources can indeed provide impressive results. Many did not even have a guess, but I thank all who did participate, and hope this illustration was as much fun for all of you as it was for me.

Cheers.

Edited October 29, 2013 by psyche101

[psyche101]

Until you can prove that they are not either of those they still are simply unknown. The logic you are using seems to indicate that our knowledge and ability to discover new phenomena is frozen in the moment. Instead of labeling something as unknown there seems to be a desire to jump to the irrational conclusion that it MUST be alien in nature. History shows that many things once thought magical and unknowable were anything but.

Edited for spelling.

Indeed, and if I might add, history also shows that every single answer involved with the UFO phenomena that has become clear to us today has been terrestrial in nature, including Earthlights, Sprites, Plasmas and man himself.

Not sure why that trend would change to be honest, or why people expect it to.

Edited October 29, 2013 by psyche101