Bizarre rotating object pictured over London

[zoser]

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.

See above.

[scowl]

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.

This is exactly why I'm not wasting any more of my time with Zoser's worthless link answers. Most of the time they don't answer any of the questions posed to him. When confronted he innocently acts like we just didn't understand it and he doesn't hesitate to repost the same worthless link over and over. There's a reason he never tells us what's at that link: he doesn't know.

He wants us to do his research for him.

[scowl]

Note to "spelling police", "text report over video testimony", or "check the dictionary" people, you're only hurting yourself when you take these tactics.

I would just like to know what it means when a person is debunked. Does that mean nothing that person says is true? I've only seen stories debunked.

[JesseCuster]

^Not enough actually debating or not enough crap slinging?

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?

He made the specific claim that the Portugal case was a good one because dozens of people testified to seeing the same thing. When asked for said testimonies he posted 1) a video that didn't contain dozens of testimonies 2) links to articles that made mentioned of 25 eyewitnesses but didn't contain their testimonies.

It was only when repeatedly called on the matter that he then started dumping more links. And there's a history of that. Him making claims that he is repeatedly called upon and it's only when he's been asked over and over and over and over and is in a corner, that he will admit error or pony up what's been asked of him.

This is just one more incident in a history of similar incidents. Another common factor is after the fact referring to these threads in a way that makes him sound like he had the upper hand in the discussion when anyone reading it can see otherwise.

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?

The problem is that it was a 45 minute video. All too often debates and discussions on the Internet are ruined by people simply either posting strings of videos and asking others to watch or posting links to lengthy videos as a way of avoiding actual discussion. Videos and links etc. are fine as part of an argument. But you should be expected to explain what's in the video, why you should watch it, etc. if you expect others to watch.

I (and others) have wasted far too much time watching horribly made videos that contain nothing but fact free nonsense, or lengthy videos that we're hoping to find something relevant buried somewhere within, or dealing with online people who can't make an argument for themselves and who just say "you need to watch these videos!".

After a while you get weary of clicking on more of these useless YouTube links. It's a simple courtesy that if you're going to post a long video that contains evidence to back up your case, to post the video, put a brief description of the video in your post, and if only part of the video needs to be watched to make the point, say something like "Watch from about 3:00 to 8:00 and you'll see what I mean".

Instead he just dumped a lengthy video and repeatedly refused to answer simple questions about it. He's got no-one to blame but himself if in future people simply ignore any video links he puts up if that's how he behaves.

Edited May 4, 2014 by JesseCuster

[AZDZ]

I would just like to know what it means when a person is debunked. Does that mean nothing that person says is true? I've only seen stories debunked.

I didn't think it was too difficult to figure out what he meant. With more than 3000 posts on this forum, I'd think you'd have learned how to interpret the more quirky styles of some members. I have, in only a few hundred posts time.

re@jesse I don't mind viewing offered evidence, it's all part of this forums browsing experience. Whenever it becomes "work" then I take a little break, visit other areas of the web, then come back when I'm refreshed and once again eager to follow the crumbs.

[+DieChecker]

Note to "spelling police", "text report over video testimony", or "check the dictionary" people, you're only hurting yourself when you take these tactics.

Actually, I believe there is a something in the Terms of Use that specify not attacking people over spelling and punctuation.

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.

It is not being "Open Minded" to immediately suspect a pink winged unicorn when you find hoof marks outside a rural horse stable.

It is normal to first suppose it was a horse and then if that proves to be untrue, then look for further evidence. You seem to always be seeing the pink winged unicorn, and poo-poo the people suggesting it was a horse.

[zoser]

This is exactly why I'm not wasting any more of my time with Zoser's worthless link answers. Most of the time they don't answer any of the questions posed to him. When confronted he innocently acts like we just didn't understand it and he doesn't hesitate to repost the same worthless link over and over. There's a reason he never tells us what's at that link: he doesn't know.

He wants us to do his research for him.

No I posted different links to give JC more witnesses. They were not the same links. More proof that you do not read them.

Edited May 5, 2014 by zoser

[zoser]

Actually, I believe there is a something in the Terms of Use that specify not attacking people over spelling and punctuation.

It is not being "Open Minded" to immediately suspect a pink winged unicorn when you find hoof marks outside a rural horse stable.

It is normal to first suppose it was a horse and then if that proves to be untrue, then look for further evidence. You seem to always be seeing the pink winged unicorn, and poo-poo the people suggesting it was a horse.

There is no connection between that object and a balloon whichever way you slice it. No one has found a replica that is the slightest bit convincing.

Some suggested it was a new drone. Point is no one has found one that would likely have been around at that time,

I await proof of these theories. Until then; it is what the witnessed said it was. A UFO.

[VonKarolinas]

See 9:45

Meteorologists gives expert opinion. No weather balloon.

I just wanted to jump in on this. I decided to check out this one item Zoser keeps harping on the a Meteorolist keep stating it was not a weather balloon. I will say this, gusy, sometimes it helps to watch his links, it only helps to discredit him. At no time does the Meteorologist say that it is not a weather balloon.

Here is the exact quote, from BBC Meteorologist Tomasz Schafernaker: "It certainly doesn't look like a standard weather balloon to me. For example it has the strange tentacles hanging from the bottom. I certainly wouldn't expect to see those on standard weather balloon."

All he says is that it does not look like a standad weather balloon. That is because it was not a standard weather balloon, it is a "scientific balloon" used by NASA for research purposes. As Seeder showed on Page 1. Here is a link that explains the program, look at page 2 for a familiar pic. http://www.ipac.caltech.edu/irspace/NASA%20Scientific%20Balloons.PDF

The Meteorologist then goes on to state that it did not move like a weather balloon. Again, that's because it is not a weather balloon. It could have been tethered for all anyone knows.

So the claim that a Meteorologist states it was not a weather balloon is incorrect. He never says that.

[maximusnow]

Awsome ....aleins use rotors also....Sweet! If they would just speak to us...we could share our knowlege, like tail rotors could be useful.

[Sweetpumper]

Awsome ....aleins use rotors also....Sweet! If they would just speak to us...we could share our knowlege, like tail rotors could be useful.

And balsa wood. Aliens use balsa wood.

[Gummug]

I just wanted to jump in on this. I decided to check out this one item Zoser keeps harping on the a Meteorolist keep stating it was not a weather balloon. I will say this, gusy, sometimes it helps to watch his links, it only helps to discredit him. At no time does the Meteorologist say that it is not a weather balloon.

Here is the exact quote, from BBC Meteorologist Tomasz Schafernaker: "It certainly doesn't look like a standard weather balloon to me. For example it has the strange tentacles hanging from the bottom. I certainly wouldn't expect to see those on standard weather balloon."

All he says is that it does not look like a standad weather balloon. That is because it was not a standard weather balloon, it is a "scientific balloon" used by NASA for research purposes. As Seeder showed on Page 1. Here is a link that explains the program, look at page 2 for a familiar pic. http://www.ipac.calt...ic Balloons.PDF

The Meteorologist then goes on to state that it did not move like a weather balloon. Again, that's because it is not a weather balloon. It could have been tethered for all anyone knows.

So the claim that a Meteorologist states it was not a weather balloon is incorrect. He never says that.

It's all NASA's fault. Why can't they use balloons that look more normal? I know, they do it on purpose just 'cuz they like to get us UFOlogists all stirred up!

edited for precision?

Edited May 5, 2014 by Gummug

[scowl]

So the claim that a Meteorologist states it was not a weather balloon is incorrect. He never says that.

So once again when Zoser demands that we do our research, it's really to help Zoser with his sloppy research.

[+DieChecker]

There is no connection between that object and a balloon whichever way you slice it. No one has found a replica that is the slightest bit convincing.

Convincing to whom? You? I've read enough in the ET section to know that even if some kid came forward and admitted he was flying a shark balloon, and had a home video proving it, that you would dismiss it immediately. It seems the only proof you accept is proof that supports your bias view of whatever is under discussion.

[+DieChecker]

Zoser,

You don't see any similarity between....

and....

Here is what I see....

Edited May 5, 2014 by DieChecker

[+Hammerclaw]

It could a scout craft from a star-spanning civilization many lightyears away, or it could be and unmanned drone the size of a small table produced locally. What seems more likely to you?

[+OverSword]

Zoser,

You don't see any similarity between....

and....

Here is what I see....

solved

[psyche101]

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.

You find the CT section so very different?

Really?

[Space Commander Travis]

You find the CT section so very different?

Really?

But there is usually some truth or known facts that are at the bottom of those arguments, and if they were true (the conspiracy theories) then it would raise some very important issues. Most of the things that are bickered about here are purely opinion, though, and no one can know for sure whether or not they are true, but nevertheless people still say things like "that's just speculation" to dismiss any suggestions or ideas anyone puts forward.

[psyche101]

But there is usually some truth or known facts that are at the bottom of those arguments, and if they were true (the conspiracy theories) then it would raise some very important issues. Most of the things that are bickered about here are purely opinion, though, and no one can know for sure whether or not they are true, but nevertheless people still say things like "that's just speculation" to dismiss any suggestions or ideas anyone puts forward.

Mate, I have to say I feel the same very much applies to this section, the resident recalcitrant withstanding.

Um, ... suggestions and ideas are speculations aren't they? That's where this sections has problems too, people who cannot differentiate between fact and speculation, for those who can, it's not so much of an uphill climb.

You guys seem to have Earl, we have Zoser. I gotta say, I see a lot of similarities.

[Space Commander Travis]

Mate, I have to say I feel the same very much applies to this section, the resident recalcitrant withstanding.

Um, ... suggestions and ideas are speculations aren't they? That's where this sections has problems too, people who cannot differentiate between fact and speculation, for those who can, it's not so much of an uphill climb.

You guys seem to have Earl, we have Zoser. I gotta say, I see a lot of similarities.

Don't forget Turbonium.

[psyche101]

Don't forget Turbonium.

I had forgot old Turbs, I have a feeling a few people will envy that

Haha, not sure who has it worse to be honest!!

[badeskov]

I had forgot old Turbs, I have a feeling a few people will envy that

Haha, not sure who has it worse to be honest!!

Forgettng Turbs....? I am impressed

Cheers,

Badeskov

[An0n1m0us]

Have you ever seen the movie "Batteries not Included"? I think they are here.

[EllJay]

Bizarre rotating object pictured over London

Bizarre rotating object pictured over Paris