Interesting UFO Video

[duendy]

phlo dude....you are one lazy-eyed sun of a...
if you cannot fathom a little post wit clear separated paragraphs prefaced with 'me'---ie., tat is ME not you, then how could we ever trust your so-called unveiling of all the documents, videos etc etc you apparently have analyzed towards your way of thinking....huh?

and as for brains falling out...please. try and be original, or I will stop talkin to YOU, through utter bordem

and..i haven't finished yet. whenever the reipient starts moaning on about typos and
pronunciation and similar, it means you are avoidng the issues.....i have seen the pattern at a good cross section of forums in my time
i have NEVER ever done it. and i expect that othes do unto mewhat i do unto them

so there. put that in yer pipe and toke it

 

[phlogistician]

Duendy, no I'm not avoiding the issues, and no, I'm not lazy, YOU ARE, because YOU are too lazy to format your replies, which, pretty much underlines your entire attitude, which is slovenly, lazy, and disintenterested. You got nothing, but expect others to have to falsify whatetver madcap claims you make. Well, that's not the way it works. Get off that couch, and see the world, you claim to see. You read too much of thr wrong stuff, you total couch potato. Get off you retard ass, and experience something real, you total, arse ridden loser.

 

[Roman]

I don't read any of duendy's stuff because he's so terrible at punctuation, capitalization and quotation.

He might have something interesting, but it's hardly worth the headache to pick through his shitty writing.

 

[Stryder]

I'm just going to point out that the last three posts seem to have trailed completely off from the thread and more into a juvenile slanging match display, to which there are no winners (Since there is nothing to win and no way to win)

Could you please try to refrain from Ad Hom's because it's so Chav

 

[MetaKron]

What could discredit fringe scientists more than someone who looks like a fringe scientist who gets on these forums and makes a total ass of himself.

 

[duendy]

I'm just going to point out that the last three posts seem to have trailed completely off from the thread and more into a juvenile slanging match display, to which there are no winners (Since there is nothing to win and no way to win)

Could you please try to refrain from Ad Hom's because it's so Chav

Welll put! At the mo, yu seem tp be the only adult here. i am not gonna lower meself to reply to such obvious arrogant shits, who, as SOON, as someting challenges their entrenched alpha malehood they start throwing their shit. like a poor caged monkey in a cage.....tho if they puh me i too can throw shit, and my aim is good

but see what happened. tis they who took us offa this very nteresting subject. let us continue in an adult manner

 

[Silas]

Not to carry on the topic hijack, but seriously, duendy, it was a civil request at the time and you just ignore it. Before you start typing your response to a portion of a previous post, just type [/quote] first, write your response, then [ quote] (without the space, obviously) before the next bit of the post you are quoting. It took me quite a while to realise that you were actually responding in the middle of what looked like an extended quote of my posts (this was a while back), so like phlogistician I also missed points that you were making. Nearly everybody else like you (and I) who like to respond to individual points does it, why can't you make that tiny extra effort? It's part of the common courtesy of behaviour in a forum - disagree with people, sure, but do your best to format your responses the way everybody else does so that everybody isn't having to adjust to certain individual's way of doing things.

So you might ask, why doesn't Medicine*Woman get this kind of heat? The answer is that because you allow the original [ quote] tag to stand, the text of the post and your reply is formatted much smaller, and in italics, and on a grey background (could they have picked a worse colour?). I hate this system personally, but it's what we're all forced to live with. M*W's personal quotation system at least makes it very clear where the quote ends and her reply begins.



phlog made a good point about the so-called film and photography evidence not actually forming usable data. And that video of the stuff floating about in earth's orbit is one of those where outré theorists say, "Look at this weird stuff!" and I look at it and say, "It's exactly what it looks like - bits of debris, dust, ice droplets or whatever, floating around the shuttle which move when the shuttle fires its engines because they're tiny and close to the rocket. If they were alien spaceships they wouldn't do that!" It's like when Moon Hoax Believers point at photographs and say "Look! The shadows are diverging! There must be two light sources!" and I say, "Look! The shadows are diverging, like every other picture of shadows from the sun I've ever seen - if there were two light sources it would look different to this!"

 

[duendy]

Not to carry on the topic hijack, but seriously, duendy, it was a civil request at the time and you just ignore it. Before you start typing your response to a portion of a previous post, just type

first, write your response, then [ quote] (without the space, obviously) before the next bit of the post you are quoting. It took me quite a while to realise that you were actually responding in the middle of what looked like an extended quote of my posts (this was a while back), so like phlogistician I also missed points that you were making. Nearly everybody else like you (and I) who like to respond to individual points does it, why can't you make that tiny extra effort? It's part of the common courtesy of behaviour in a forum - disagree with people, sure, but do your best to format your responses the way everybody else does so that everybody isn't having to adjust to certain individual's way of doing things.

ME:: now ...isn't tia clear Silas? tisisme. i have put it in caps sos you can see me. now this i my me paragraph. no mistake right. you read this, then you will see YOUR paragraph next which i will answer with another ME-paragraph. ti is the way i don it....for now...i know another person who will answer anothers posts like so, exeample...in te actual post he will bracket what he says like so [[[[[[[[['words']]]]]]]]]. right? that ishis unique way, and i can understand it quite clearly.
now you:

So you might ask, why doesn't Medicine*Woman get this kind of heat? The answer is that because you allow the original [ quote] tag to stand, the text of the post and your reply is formatted much smaller, and in italics, and on a grey background (could they have picked a worse colour?). I hate this system personally, but it's what we're all forced to live with. M*W's personal quotation system at least makes it very clear where the quote ends and her reply begins.

me:: noone forces me to do anything if i can help it. take this or dont read me


phlog made a good point about the so-called film and photography evidence not actually forming usable data. And that video of the stuff floating about in earth's orbit is one of those where outré theorists say, "Look at this weird stuff!" and I look at it and say, "It's exactly what it looks like - bits of debris, dust, ice droplets or whatever, floating around the shuttle which move when the shuttle fires its engines because they're tiny and close to the rocket. If they were alien spaceships they wouldn't do that!" It's like when Moon Hoax Believers point at photographs and say "Look! The shadows are diverging! There must be two light sources!" and I say, "Look! The shadows are diverging, like every other picture of shadows from the sun I've ever seen - if there were two light sources it would look different to this!"[/QUOTE]

NO i do not agree at all with whatyou say. or rather i agree that phenomena as you talk aout propbably exists, but that has nothing to do wit hat i said i hav seen. i., craft that stay stationary in the air for long periodsof time in formation. i SAW it. not in real life but in news footage

also about vieo andpotogaphic evidence....shiit. pseudosceptics have a filed day wit this one dont tey. all they hve to d is catgoricaly refute LL such evience on the gronds it ISNT evidence in teir narrow view

so, ten, tell me, what the living fluck does personhave todo when they see a Ufo other tan reac for what technology provides--a camera? tell me.....what?

 

[SkinWalker]

...it was a civil request at the time and you just ignore it. ... Nearly everybody else like you (and I) who like to respond to individual points does it, why can't you make that tiny extra effort?

I just don't read him much. On occasion, but if he doesn't care how his words look, then he probably doesn't care to have his words read.

Still, he does, on occasion have something to say and I'm glad to catch those moments.

 

[duendy]

I just don't read him much. On occasion, but if he doesn't care how his words look, then he probably doesn't care to have his words read.

Still, he does, on occasion have something to say and I'm glad to catch those moments.

ohhhhhh, whay thanyou mr skinwalker hun

glad i can be of service//actually would luv to see you lot cope wid thes mini keyboard....and have found the batteries are going. i'm tappin on keys, lookin up and letters are missin

well look at that. not a letter missin. tis fukers fukin wid me

 

[Ophiolite]

Duendy why do you show so much disrespect to the others on this board by failing to follow the quote system? I know you have an awkward system with which to operate. I am ready to accept that correction of spelling errors and formatting is very difficult for you with your system, but are you unable to use the

and

structure?
Can I point out, as I think I have before, that for several months I was operating with a faulty key board that repeated most of my keystrokes, so that I had to painfully go through the post letter by letter deleting - then retyping, when the delete key repeated.
I did this for two reasons:
1. I wanted my arguments to be easily read and digested, because I felt they were important, at least in terms of the threads.
2. Out of respect for other readers on the forum.

I do not understand why you cannot at least make the effort. All that comes across is a genuine hatred. It is growing unattractive.

 

[Silas]

NO i do not agree at all with whatyou say. or rather i agree that phenomena as you talk aout propbably exists, but that has nothing to do wit hat i said i hav seen. i., craft that stay stationary in the air for long periodsof time in formation. i SAW it. not in real life but in news footage

also about vieo andpotogaphic evidence....shiit. pseudosceptics have a filed day wit this one dont tey. all they hve to d is catgoricaly refute LL such evience on the gronds it ISNT evidence in teir narrow view

so, ten, tell me, what the living fluck does personhave todo when they see a Ufo other tan reac for what technology provides--a camera? tell me.....what?

There's a reason that all UFO footage consists of distant lights in a night sky, or if it's daytime it's always a shape in the sky that is so far away it falls below the resolution level of the camera. The reason is that a person in the moment is not always capable of recognising a particular flying object - so they're seeing a UFO - and they pull out their cameras and start filming. But sometimes they get their tapes home and they run them through the machine, and they can see what it is - it's an aeroplane or a helicopter or whatever. "Oh, well. Never mind" and they overwrite it with the next episode of Lost. ONLY the tapes (or photographs) in which there is insufficient information to make an identification remain "photographs of UFOs". The fact that nobody ever took a clear picture of a mysterious unidentifiable object implies that all the unclear pictures would become unmysterious if only they could be resolved.

Who was that guy who put film of "mysterious lights in the sky in Sydney" on the web here - I mean, that was planes coming in to land, fafuxache!

 

[duendy]

There's a reason that all UFO footage consists of distant lights in a night sky, or if it's daytime it's always a shape in the sky that is so far away it falls below the resolution level of the camera. The reason is that a person in the moment is not always capable of recognising a particular flying object - so they're seeing a UFO - and they pull out their cameras and start filming.

me:::no, you are concluding there. i see you trying to put all your eggs/ideas in ONE basket. dangerous

But sometimes they get their tapes home and they run them through the machine, and they can see what it is - it's an aeroplane or a helicopter or whatever. "Oh, well. Never mind" and they overwrite it with the next episode of Lost. ONLY the tapes (or photographs) in which there is insufficient information to make an identification remain "photographs of UFOs". The fact that nobody ever took a clear picture of a mysterious unidentifiable object implies that all the unclear pictures would become unmysterious if only they could be resolved.
me::: seriously dude, i dont think we are looking at the same stuff etc.....or, if we are, you seem to have a strange interetation of the WHOLE phenomenon

Who was that guy who put film of "mysterious lights in the sky in Sydney" on the web here - I mean, that was planes coming in to land, fafuxache!

me:::cant see it

 

[Silas]

me::: seriously dude, i dont think we are looking at the same stuff etc.....or, if we are, you seem to have a strange interetation of the WHOLE phenomenon

Please post or link to whatever it is that doesn't come under that heading that you find so convincing. I've been looking for that kind of evidence all my life.

"cant see it" - Well, this was ages and ages ago, and it pertained to a thread that claimed that aliens must use a light source we don't have, based on spectroscopic analysis of the lights, but it turned out that that element (can't remember what it was now, but not Sodium obviously) was used in aeroplane lights. But I was just making a by-the-way remark, not inviting comparisons or anything so I didn't go to the trouble of posting a link or anything, sorry about that.

 

[duendy]

Please post or link to whatever it is that doesn't come under that heading that you find so convincing. I've been looking for that kind of evidence all my life.

me::::: sorry Silas, dont knpw wht your askingme here.....?

*********************)***********

 

[phlogistician]

this was ages and ages ago, and it pertained to a thread that claimed that aliens must use a light source we don't have, based on spectroscopic analysis of the lights, but it turned out that that element (can't remember what it was now, but not Sodium obviously) was used in aeroplane lights.

The guy that made the claim was 'Chris Beacham' who sold CDs of UFO images. He and some guy wrote a 'scientific' paper on the spectroscopy of a light source they had filmed. The element was Mercury, which is used in some aircraft lights, ... but far more importantly, is very often used in street lights. (Mercury vapour gives the near white light, Sodium the orange glow you see in street lights.)

The original thread is here;

http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?t=40323&page=1&pp=20

In the 'paper' Chris and his chum didn't describe how they attained a spectra from a moving object from a 2 second exposure. Now, if you've done high school physics, you've probably played with diffaction gratings, and made spectra from light sources, and determined the wavelength of a light source by taking various measurements and perfroming a few simple calculations.

The 'paper' didn't detail any of the measurements made, nor did it specify the method by which the measurements were attained. All of these things are required in a real scientific paper.

You'll notice Chris got defensive and flounced once he was asked a few salient questions.

In case people don't know why Chris was talking total arse, here's a link to wikipedia about diffraction;

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diffraction_pattern

Chris allegedly tracked a moving object for two seconds, and obtained a diffraction pattern. Well, as the pattern needs to be measured, the tracking needs to be very accurate.

Here's the important pic;

One point of light passing through a diffraction grating produces those spots of light. Imagine that source was moving, and the difficulty tracking it. Then imagine what that does to the pattern, ... .it gets blurred, making any measurements of it less accurate, and therefore any results similarly error laden. Of course, to perform any calculation with the image, the length of the path of a light ray _inside_ the camera optics needs to be known. Chris didn't say how he'd measured that. Unless he just compared the spectra to one he measured from a fixed point previously. He didn't state that, either, however.

So, to sum up, Chris either measured a streetlight, which used Mercury vapour, or somehow did manage to measure an aircraft light, or, he just made the whole thing up, and then jumped to a conclusion that it must have been a UFO because it was Mercury. Hmmmmm.

 

[Ophiolite]

Nicely researched post Phlogistician. Of course it will be discounted by the true believers, since they know you have an agenda.

 

[Silas]

But sometimes they get their tapes home and they run them through the machine, and they can see what it is - it's an aeroplane or a helicopter or whatever. "Oh, well. Never mind" and they overwrite it with the next episode of Lost. ONLY the tapes (or photographs) in which there is insufficient information to make an identification remain "photographs of UFOs". The fact that nobody ever took a clear picture of a mysterious unidentifiable object implies that all the unclear pictures would become unmysterious if only they could be resolved.

me::: seriously dude, i dont think we are looking at the same stuff etc.....or, if we are, you seem to have a strange interetation of the WHOLE phenomenon

Duendy, I meant provide links to UFO phenomena that does not consist of blurry images of distant objects or lights at night time. Show me an actual spaceship in other words.

 

[duendy]

Duendy, I meant provide links to UFO phenomena that does not consist of blurry images of distant objects or lights at night time. Show me an actual spaceship in other words.

'blurry objects'...? i actually have seen some quite clear photoes and video footage of UFPs. that's first

and econdly. its thelimitationsof the current technology--as faras i am aware. so one has atmospherics in between camera and subject.....BUT, only yesterady i was looking at some photos. one can see patterns of same shapes. forexample of rthe typical flying saucer shape....ok?

nowwww, what are the odds on that? that that shape could keep cropping up from diverse reports?

will get you the url for the site later, first answer me

 

[phlogistician]

'blurry objects'...? i actually have seen some quite clear photoes and video footage of UFPs. that's first

So have I. Obvious fakes, Billy Meier crap and the like.

. its thelimitationsof the current technology--as faras i am aware. so one has atmospherics in between camera and subject.....

I can stick my camera out of the window and snag a good picture of a jet liner at several thousand feet altitude. There's no issue with technology at all. The only issue is that clear pictures clearly show a mundane object. The blurry ones allow the imagination to interpret them.

BUT, only yesterady i was looking at some photos. one can see patterns of same shapes. forexample of rthe typical flying saucer shape....ok?

nowwww, what are the odds on that? that that shape could keep cropping up from diverse reports?

People follow suit. That's what that tells me. But you seem to have forgotten the genesis of the term 'flying saucer'. The term was not coined to desribe the shape at all, but the motion of the object. This of course was misreported, and seized upon, until copy cat sitings of 'saucer shaped objects' became mainstream. These were obviously people jumping on the bandwagon. Also, there have been trends in observations. 'Cigar shaped' objects, 'saucer' shaped objects, and triangular shaped objects. People follow suit, especially the unstable people, it seems.