Oh, there are absolutes. Gravity will always pull you back towards Earth after you jump. That is absolute. You can have the opinion that it won't, and that you can fly, but that is self deception. Your perception of gravity does not affect the absolute truth of gravity.
Excellent New Footage for UFO Buffs
- Thread starter electrafixtion
- Start date
Oh, there are absolutes. Gravity will always pull you back towards Earth after you jump. That is absolute. You can have the opinion that it won't, and that you can fly, but that is self deception. Your perception of gravity does not affect the absolute truth of gravity.
And you mention it in this thread because?
I preferred your witless 'fuck you' contribution on that thread.
electrafixtion
Registered Senior Member
What you describe here is most assuredly not a perception per definition. Gravity is not open to individual interpretation any more than the weather is. What you are describing is the act of being mentally ill or delusional.
If anything, the basic contention minus real scientific analysis, that the video is a hoax, is based on delusion or prejudice rather than non impulsive rational observation.
Yet 'yogic flying' is claimed to be real by the practitioners. Some people want to believe something so much, they deny an absolute like gravity. See how far the human mind can twist itself?
The camera shake changes in the close up, as does the quality of the footage. The close ups clearly aren't from the same source, so it's been edited from multiple sources. That does not agree with the claimed events, so it is a fake.
I'm not prejudiced, btw. I'd love to see some evidence of Aliens visiting the Earth, I firmly believe the odds dictate that there will be intelligent life all over the Universe. I just doubt the alleged sightings and the circumstances that they have occurred in.
electrafixtion
Registered Senior Member
Not sure what you are replying to here. What is the context of your response more or less?
electrafixtion
Registered Senior Member
I say this is a snap judgment, although I do not say that this video is genuine or not. I just don;t believe that either one of us is REALLY qualified to make a valuable judgment based on your observations. BTW, where is the "claimed events" part you are referring to?
The preamble to the video, and on the web site it's hosted on. It says who captured the video, when, and how.
BTW, did you notice that the time stamp jumps forwards, and then backwards during the cuts and zooms? The footage isn't even in chronological order, so it;s certainly not showing us an accurate representation of how events took place.
electrafixtion
Registered Senior Member
Again, I am not saying this is absolute proof of anything, just rather excellent with respect to it's clarity. I did find this on the page where the video was located and it makes clear that the organization that initially scrutinized the video, edited it with respect to it's original length and also added close ups that they themselves provided taken from the submitted video.
"We, as Sirius UFO Space Science Research Center firstly, spoke with all the witnesses separetly then did the detailed analysis of the full footage of 2 hours 30 mn. long videos with the participation of our members of science board... We have enlarged the video images of the footages, did all the detailed analysis and checked their pixels and went through the all footage frame by frame. After doing all the necessary analysis which went on for several weeks, we came to a definite conclusion with no doubts that these are “100% genuine footages”!..."
I have been attempting to look into CGI detection with respect to the basic exterior examination of video content. This video is fairly intense with respect to what normally typifies CGI.
So you refute me, and a few posts later say exactly what started the argument in the first place. In the process telling me I should watch what I post, riiiiight.
That: "the film is probably a hoax, but wouldn't it be nice if it weren't?"
I also asked an open-ended question about the Phoenix Lights, for which it could be argued there are more independent observers.
electrafixtion
Registered Senior Member
Well Geoff, I'll tell you this much concerning reality. They sure as hell weren't flares. But that doesn't mean I believe them to have been what Miss Goodbottom (Blossom Goodchild) has been preaching was arriving yesterday. LOTZA possibilities. Thanks to a poster right here in the pseudo section, we know that the former Governor has come way forward and admitted seeing what he believed "something not of this world" (or something very close to that)
There are really one or two possibilities for the Phoenix Lights.
1) human technology
2) non human technology
right now to the best of my knowledge, there is no way to know which.
The military denies it was theirs, but I don't believe that for a minute. That "organization" is anything but. The right hand never knows what the left is doing.
It's important to make clear for the record that those "lights" have been seen before and since. It's a HUGE object, but we don't know what it is.
just don't believe any moron that states it was flares
Yes, youve shown us admirably with your ideas about truth.
What a cheap shot, I was correcting your assertion;
Your perception of it, and your word twisting don't change the truth.
electrafixtion
Registered Senior Member
If anything, the advancement of science itself has proved that "truth" is a flawed concept. Truth evolves as our understanding of reality's fabric expands and grows. Otherwise, we would not have what was proved to be law yesterday, being corrected via new laws today. Because we can revise truth scientifically, it cannot remain a constant. Of course one could argue that what was once considered truth, was in fact never truth to begin with, but then we would have to re-examine everything that has been proved thus far within science. As such, there would be no such thing as reality. Whether we view reality or truth as a constant, one of the two has to be flawed because of the revisionary nature of progress. The concept of progress of course brings us to the consideration for what is linearity, time and space itself.
Typical UFO believer standpoint. There is what is occurring, and there is your perception of it. Deciding what the object is based on your subjective view of how 'advanced' we are leads to all kinds of problems, like thinking that what you see cannot be of terrestrial origin. That I'm afraid is an extrapolation, and incredibly flawed.
A real scientist just records what is observed, and looks for matches of that behaviour. They do not leap to conclusions, or abandon their senses.
electrafixtion
Registered Senior Member
What a load of crap. My post had NOTHING to do with UFOs, perception or extrapolation. WTF are you talking about????
According to you, a "scientist" is an imaginationless machine much likened to a cross between a video camera and a computer immagery identification program. Where do people come up with this stuff?
I'm trying to keep the discussion within the context of the thread. The thread is about UFOs. Try to stay focussed.
I haven't said that at all. Clearly you are so keen to pick a fight you've stopped trying to comprehend.
Hmm, where have I heard that before... oh yea!
You said the exact same thing to me (about picking a fight), and then after a bit of misleading misconception BS you ended up saying exactly what I said in the first place (The truth is what it is), which coincidentally is what started the "fight". You obviously agree that the truth is what it is irrespective of individuals, so why did you argue the counter point in the first place unless you were a)confused or b)looking for a fight.
So who exactly is picking the fights here? You seem to be the constant in both equations...
You selectively quoted yourself, which was dishonest. Now, please post something of merit.