Bizarre rotating object pictured over London

[zoser]

Give me a timestamp for the Alfena part of that video. It's titled "UFO Europe Untold Stories" so it's not specifically about the Alfena incident and instead of watching the whole thing, I'd like to just view the relevant part

Given that zoser is refusing to answer simple questions about the video, I decided to go ahead and watch it myself. The first 13 or so minutes is about the Alfena UFO incident.

For the record, I am not denying that there are dozens of eyewitnesses to the Alfena incident, I simply asked for a link that gives the dozens of eyewitness testimonies who all "claimed the same thing".

So to answer zosers question of "How many witnesses did you count in the video?"

The answer is THREE. I asked for the "dozens" of eyewitness testimonies "claiming the same thing" and I get a link to a video containing a grand total of 3 witnesses giving brief soundbites about the incident.

edit: Correction, there are three witnesses interviewed in the video, but a couple of brief bits of other testimonies are also mentioned.

What baffles me zoser is not that there is 1 or 2 or 10 or 100 witnesses to this incident, it's that when you make the claim and then are asked to back up the claim, you lead people on a merry chase where you refuse to answer simple questions about the claims you're making and now that I've viewed your source for your claim, it doesn't contain what you say it contains.

Yes, there is a mention of other witnesses being interviewed by UFO investigators in the video, but none of their testimonies are actually given. Just brief soundbites from THREE people who saw it.

edit: I didn't watch beyond the first 15 minutes or so of the video, so I'm willing to concede that perhaps buried somewhere later in the video are the other testimonies zoser is talking about, but the video switched over to talking about a different incident so I assume it was finished with the Alfena UFO.

Now I know why you refused to answer the question, because the answer is NO, the video linked DOES NOT contain the "dozens" of testimonies of "people claiming the same thing" about the Alfena incident. You could have simply admitted this, but instead you evade and dodge, perhaps hoping no-one would watch the video and realise it does not live up to your claims.

Here some more for you Jesse.

The first one is in 3 parts.

Don't let the language put you off.

I have Portuguese friends if you want the precise translation.

And a few more:

Each one is bristling with witnesses.

As the link said there really were a large number of witnesses.

The object was reflecting the early morning sun, which caused on-lookers to surmise the object was made of some type of metal. In a short period of time, as many as 25 witnesses were observing the UFO.

http://www.ufocasebo...tugal-1990.html

Pretty much as I told you.

Get counting!

Edited May 4, 2014 by zoser

[zoser]

Now I know why you refused to answer the question, because the answer is NO, the video linked DOES NOT contain the "dozens" of testimonies of "people claiming the same thing" about the Alfena incident. You could have simply admitted this, but instead you evade and dodge, perhaps hoping no-one would watch the video and realise it does not live up to your claims.

Now just one more thing; here is what Zoser actually said in relation to the dozens of witnesses:

http://www.unexplained-mysteries.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=265832&st=60&p=5156361entry5156361

Note is does not refer to a specific video. I have in fact watched many videos on this incident.

You have fallen down a large whole that you dug for yourself Jesse. I never took you there.

By your own admission you have no interest in Ufology for it's own sake but your interest is photographic imaging. By analogy it's like trying to be a violin expert because one has a good knowledge of wood,

Think it through.

Z

[seeder]

You have fallen down a large whole .

Hole

[ChrLzs]

Just answer the question, Zoser.

It will do you good.

Making mistakes and having the guts to own up to them is how you LEARN stuff. Don't you ever make mistakes? Gee, that means.....

...

...

Edited May 4, 2014 by ChrLzs

[toast]

You have fallen down a large whole

BTW:

Is your grammar in the German language perfect, Mr. Z.?

[zoser]

Just answer the question, Zoser.

It will do you good.

Making mistakes and having the guts to own up to them is how you LEARN stuff. Don't you ever make mistakes? Gee, that means.....

...

...

It's answered. In the post with the original clip, the reference to 25 witnesses, and the other documentary clips on the incident.

If I have left anything else out please let me know.

Classic example of a skeptic pursuing another person on UM instead of pursuing the case and getting more than he bargained for.

[Cherrypress]

This looks very much like something from the amazon delivery drone concept..

Edited May 4, 2014 by Cherrypress

[scowl]

zoser you are such a joke. Cannot even answer JC's question about something YOU CLAIMED was a fact

Zoser links but doesn't understand what he links to. Whenever he says the answer to something is in some long youtube video yet he doesn't say how the video answers the question, rest assured that he's only wasting your time.

[EllJay]

Speaking of bizarre rotating objects, out of Anthony Woods large video library of UFO's he filmed, this one is surely the most bizarre and intriguing one.

[zoser]

Speaking of bizarre rotating objects, out of Anthony Woods large video library of UFO's he filmed, this one is surely the most bizarre and intriguing one.

Some of them look like the EBANI seen in other parts of the world.

[zoser]

Zoser links but doesn't understand what he links to. Whenever he says the answer to something is in some long youtube video yet he doesn't say how the video answers the question, rest assured that he's only wasting your time.

Not at all. Check out the links; you will find that the Alfena UFO was indeed well witnessed.

[seeder]

Not at all. Check out the links; you will find that the Alfena UFO was indeed well witnessed.

so produce witness reports then? text links, Im sure you can do that cant you maestro? If you cant, better stop banging on about it hadn't you?

Empty cans always make the most noise

[scowl]

Not at all. Check out the links; you will find that the Alfena UFO was indeed well witnessed.

Yes, the links showed that lots of witnesses saw a balloon. This is a perfect example of Zoser not understanding what he's linking thus wasting people's time.

[zoser]

Yes, the links showed that lots of witnesses saw a balloon. This is a perfect example of Zoser not understanding what he's linking thus wasting people's time.

More refusal to watch and listen.

[scowl]

More refusal to watch and listen.

No I went to every link you posted. My conclusion is that they saw a balloon exactly like the one seeder posted. My other conclusion is that you don't understand how to interpret witness testimony and that's why you're constantly being fooled by it.

[zoser]

No I went to every link you posted. My conclusion is that they saw a balloon exactly like the one seeder posted. My other conclusion is that you don't understand how to interpret witness testimony and that's why you're constantly being fooled by it.

You've been debunked Scowl. On Rendlesham, Phoenix, and now this.

It's time to choose another subject old mate.

[zoser]

No I went to every link you posted. My conclusion is that they saw a balloon exactly like the one seeder posted. My other conclusion is that you don't understand how to interpret witness testimony and that's why you're constantly being fooled by it.

See 9:45

Meteorologists gives expert opinion. No weather balloon.

Nothing in fact about the way that it moved suggested that it could have been. Just like the lighthouse and the A10's.

No match to eye witness testimony.

[scowl]

You've been debunked Scowl. On Rendlesham, Phoenix, and now this.

You might want to look up the word "debunked", son.

[zoser]

You might want to look up the word "debunked", son.

Over to you Mr S..............I'm happy to discuss these cases and what the witnesses saw and reported.............

I'll give you a chance to get some material together.

Back later.

Edited May 4, 2014 by zoser

[AZDZ]

Note to "spelling police", "text report over video testimony", or "check the dictionary" people, you're only hurting yourself when you take these tactics. Few of us 'lurking participants' think it is as amusing or as damaging as you think it is. It only shows you have nothing more of value to contradict claims with and, frankly, scores one for the other side, imo . This all goes for people on either side of a debate.[end mini-modding]

[JesseCuster]

It's answered. In the post with the original clip, the reference to 25 witnesses, and the other documentary clips on the incident.

But you weren't asked for references to other witnesses. You were asked for actual testimony of dozens of eyewitnesses to the event that you claim all testified to making the same claim.

Do you know the difference between the actual testimony of dozens of different people who witnessed an event and a claim that dozens of people saw the event? Twice you've made mention of the 25 people seeing the UFO as if it's the same thing as actuall producing their testimonies that they supposedly gave.

I'm perfectly willing to believe that these dozens of people actually gave testimony to the event and that that evidence is out there on the Internet. The reason I asked is because you mentioned it and I couldn't find the testimony after a quick Google search.

The following set of events then happened:

You linked to a 45 minute long about which you were repeatedly asked if the dozens of testimonies were contained within. I asked this because I'm fed up of people arguing by just dumping long videos in posts without explaining why people should watch it.

Repeatedly you refused to answer a simple yes/no question as to whether the information I was looking for was contained with the video.

When I actually gave up asking you, I watched the video myself and the answer is NO, it does not contain the dozens of eyewitness testimonies all making the same claim. It contains soundbites from 3 of the witnesses and brief references to parts of other testimonies, but the dozens of eyewitness testimonies were not contained within the video.

When this is pointed out to you, you try and spin the facts to make it sound like I am the one who someone got burned by your debating skills. Anyone reading this thread can see your debating tactics for what they are.

You linked to a YouTube video, refused to answer questions about people should watch it, are called upon the fact that it doesn't contain the answer to the question you were being asked and then try and make it sound like others are at fault for this.

Classic example of a skeptic pursuing another person on UM instead of pursuing the case and getting more than he bargained for.

I got a hell of a let LESS than what I bargained for. I wasted my time asking you questions you don't ask and watching a video that didn't contain the information you lead others to believe it contained and then put your own spin on things to make it seem like you did nothing wrong and came out as the winner in that exchange. Exactly how honest do you think this makes you appear to the regulars here? I know you have a reputation here that isn't very good, and it's because of debating methods like that that it just gets worse and worse.

Given the facts above (and anyone can read the thread and verify my version of events is what transpired, and not some mean old skeptic getting more than he bargained when pursuing zoser), why should I read of watch the other links you provided?

Fool me once, shame on me, fool me twice, etc.

You've certainly got some cojones to try and spin this as some sort of victory for you.

Edited May 4, 2014 by JesseCuster

[JesseCuster]

Note to "spelling police", "text report over video testimony", or "check the dictionary" people, you're only hurting yourself when you take these tactics. Few of us 'lurking participants' think it is as amusing or as damaging as you think it is. It only shows you have nothing more of value to contradict claims with and, frankly, scores one for the other side, imo . This all goes for people on either side of a debate.[end mini-modding]

I agree. Unless someone's writing is so poor that it's hard to read or understand, it shouldn't be focussed upon. It doesn't make the person doing it any favours.

[Space Commander Travis]

I realise, having browsed through the last few pages of this nonsense, why I rarely bother with threads in this section much now.

or to be more accurate, I got as far as page 7 and got bored.

[AZDZ]

^Not enough actually debating or not enough crap slinging?

But you weren't asked for references to other witnesses. You were asked for actual testimony of dozens of eyewitnesses to the event that you claim all testified to making the same claim.

Do you know the difference between the actual testimony of dozens of different people who witnessed an event and a claim that dozens of people saw the event? Twice you've made mention of the 25 people seeing the UFO as if it's the same thing as actuall producing their testimonies that they supposedly gave.

I'm perfectly willing to believe that these dozens of people actually gave testimony to the event and that that evidence is out there on the Internet. The reason I asked is because you mentioned it and I couldn't find the testimony after a quick Google search.

The following set of events then happened:

You linked to a 45 minute long about which you were repeatedly asked if the dozens of testimonies were contained within. I asked this because I'm fed up of people arguing by just dumping long videos in posts without explaining why people should watch it.

Repeatedly you refused to answer a simple yes/no question as to whether the information I was looking for was contained with the video.

When I actually gave up asking you, I watched the video myself and the answer is NO, it does not contain the dozens of eyewitness testimonies all making the same claim. It contains soundbites from 3 of the witnesses and brief references to parts of other testimonies, but the dozens of eyewitness testimonies were not contained within the video.

When this is pointed out to you, you try and spin the facts to make it sound like I am the one who someone got burned by your debating skills. Anyone reading this thread can see your debating tactics for what they are.

You linked to a YouTube video, refused to answer questions about people should watch it, are called upon the fact that it doesn't contain the answer to the question you were being asked and then try and make it sound like others are at fault for this.

I got a hell of a let LESS than what I bargained for. I wasted my time asking you questions you don't ask and watching a video that didn't contain the information you lead others to believe it contained and then put your own spin on things to make it seem like you did nothing wrong and came out as the winner in that exchange. Exactly how honest do you think this makes you appear to the regulars here? I know you have a reputation here that isn't very good, and it's because of debating methods like that that it just gets worse and worse.

Given the facts above (and anyone can read the thread and verify my version of events is what transpired, and not some mean old skeptic getting more than he bargained when pursuing zoser), why should I read of watch the other links you provided?

Fool me once, shame on me, fool me twice, etc.

You've certainly got some cojones to try and spin this as some sort of victory for you.

I mostly agree with this although I wasn't THAT confused over his claims. Yeah he exaggerated the number of testimonies in THAT video then scrambled to cover his butt by posting additional videos, then positing he meant the total included all of them combined but, Jesse, weren't you sort of shaking out the trees looking for a reason not to need to watch the evidence?

I ain't saying you don't have a case here but it would have, imo, been bolstered by first watching the video THEN calling him out on it. See the difference?

Come on Zozer, you can do better than that. Be more careful to Cover Your Ass by not exaggerating facts and you make it tougher for them to derail your talking points.

[zoser]

You've certainly got some cojones to try and spin this as some sort of victory for you.

Take an interest in the case Jesse is my advice. Watch the clips with an open mind. Listen to what the witnesses say. Watch as many of them as you can. I have. For all of the major UFO cases (and a good number of the lesser ones too), I have watched half a dozen different documentaries or reviews and listened to hundreds of first hand witness testimonies.

That's what the Tantalising Testimony thread was all about. A lot of the material I still use and refer to is on that thread. You could look at it too.

I see little point in going head to head with other UM members about what in really are trivial (and personal) matters, when there is more benefit in looking at the cases.

Yes the Alfena UFO was well witnessed we know that. Yes a lot of testimonies can be found on the clips. I have listened to a lot over the years on that case. I posted many documentaries for you.

So if you are saying it was a balloon do you have any evidence? Can you produce a balloon that looks like that? The same as the close up images of the object? Seeders attempt does not do it. It's no match.

Do you have a match?

Edited May 4, 2014 by zoser