chris beacham
Registered Senior Member
...
....
....
Last edited:
more pics...pt 4
- Thread starter chris beacham
- Start date
chris
Your photos resemble cars headlights, similar to the Marfa lights.
http://www.watchingyou.com/marfa.html
Your photos resemble cars headlights, similar to the Marfa lights.
http://www.watchingyou.com/marfa.html
Wether or not the orbs LOOK like carlights has nothing to do with wether or not they ACT like headlights, Q. But, I degress and you didn't participate in the Marfa Lights discussion so I don't really know your entire opinion on the subject.
Unfortunetly, still photographs do not record the behavior of an object the way video will. We also have no location, no time of day, no real information about the conditions, what camera it was taken with, or for that matter, WHO took the photographs.
We have no data...
Unfortunetly, still photographs do not record the behavior of an object the way video will. We also have no location, no time of day, no real information about the conditions, what camera it was taken with, or for that matter, WHO took the photographs.
We have no data...
Xevious
Wether or not the orbs LOOK like carlights has nothing to do with wether or not they ACT like headlights, Q
What's your point ?
you didn't participate in the Marfa Lights discussion so I don't really know your entire opinion on the subject.
There was little reason to participate in that thread since most everything I would have said had already been stated by others. From the link I posted:
WHO took the photographs.
Ask Chris Beacham. Chris has been astounding us with his rather dubious collection of so-called UFO sightings of which he has made available to the general public, for a fee, of course:
Please note that Chris uses a post office box number. Does anyone care to pose a hypothesis as to why ?
Wether or not the orbs LOOK like carlights has nothing to do with wether or not they ACT like headlights, Q
What's your point ?
you didn't participate in the Marfa Lights discussion so I don't really know your entire opinion on the subject.
There was little reason to participate in that thread since most everything I would have said had already been stated by others. From the link I posted:
WHO took the photographs.
Ask Chris Beacham. Chris has been astounding us with his rather dubious collection of so-called UFO sightings of which he has made available to the general public, for a fee, of course:
Please note that Chris uses a post office box number. Does anyone care to pose a hypothesis as to why ?
Off topic Q, I've been to Marfa. I can tell you that the skeptic you read about was their to debunk it from the get-go and had no interest in investigating the phenomenon, accept to find any natural explanation which would fit. You find his additude evident in his own message forum, where he flames and makes fun of anyone who disagrees with him.
The fact too that you asked "what's my point" when I asked if they BEHAVE like car lights is disturbing. See, as long as you don't know one way or the other, the carlight idea fits. But, if these orbs were in fact moving vertically or something else which is not consistant with a moving vehicle, it would destroy your idea. Not wanting to find out is very unscientific - it's the same kind of thinking many people accuse UFOlogiests of which is, start with an idea good or bad, and try to support it.
Let me remind you of something: as long as you play by the rules of science, you will ALWAYS have the upper hand in a purely naturalisic debate. The guy you are speaking against will look very bad, unless he can come up with data which proves his argument. I promise I'm not trying to flame or attack you Q, but the only way you are going to really make the other guy look bad is to stick to your guns.
I think you have GREAT reasons to distrust the guy (he's selling them). But as far as having a P.O box goes, I've been to Australia and in lots of places, the residence (particularly in a smaller community) is off the major roads. Thus, the Post office box is the only way to get mail service. Do you really think that an Australian postman is going to drive up to 12 miles just to deliver one letter?
When I take the fact that this is all "for sale" yes I do think his credibility goes largely out the window.
The fact too that you asked "what's my point" when I asked if they BEHAVE like car lights is disturbing. See, as long as you don't know one way or the other, the carlight idea fits. But, if these orbs were in fact moving vertically or something else which is not consistant with a moving vehicle, it would destroy your idea. Not wanting to find out is very unscientific - it's the same kind of thinking many people accuse UFOlogiests of which is, start with an idea good or bad, and try to support it.
Let me remind you of something: as long as you play by the rules of science, you will ALWAYS have the upper hand in a purely naturalisic debate. The guy you are speaking against will look very bad, unless he can come up with data which proves his argument. I promise I'm not trying to flame or attack you Q, but the only way you are going to really make the other guy look bad is to stick to your guns.
I think you have GREAT reasons to distrust the guy (he's selling them). But as far as having a P.O box goes, I've been to Australia and in lots of places, the residence (particularly in a smaller community) is off the major roads. Thus, the Post office box is the only way to get mail service. Do you really think that an Australian postman is going to drive up to 12 miles just to deliver one letter?
When I take the fact that this is all "for sale" yes I do think his credibility goes largely out the window.
Xevious
I've been to Marfa. I can tell you that the skeptic you read about was their to debunk it from the get-go and had no interest in investigating the phenomenon, accept to find any natural explanation which would fit
Do you disagree that the Marfa lights are not car headlights ?
See, as long as you don't know one way or the other, the carlight idea fits
I merely offered an opinion as to what the lights in the photos looked like, which were almost identical to the photos from Marfa.
Thus, the Post office box is the only way to get mail service.
Good point. However, I usually distrust anyone selling anything who offers only a PO box.
Not wanting to find out is very unscientific - it's the same kind of thinking many people accuse UFOlogiests of which is, start with an idea good or bad, and try to support it.
Or, not wanting to find out simply because it is a complete waste of time considering there is not one shred of evidence to suggest anything other than natural phenomena.
When I take the fact that this is all "for sale" yes I do think his credibility goes largely out the window.
Exactly, Chris Beacham is an entrepreneur cashing in on the UFO craze.
I've been to Marfa. I can tell you that the skeptic you read about was their to debunk it from the get-go and had no interest in investigating the phenomenon, accept to find any natural explanation which would fit
Do you disagree that the Marfa lights are not car headlights ?
See, as long as you don't know one way or the other, the carlight idea fits
I merely offered an opinion as to what the lights in the photos looked like, which were almost identical to the photos from Marfa.
Thus, the Post office box is the only way to get mail service.
Good point. However, I usually distrust anyone selling anything who offers only a PO box.
Not wanting to find out is very unscientific - it's the same kind of thinking many people accuse UFOlogiests of which is, start with an idea good or bad, and try to support it.
Or, not wanting to find out simply because it is a complete waste of time considering there is not one shred of evidence to suggest anything other than natural phenomena.
When I take the fact that this is all "for sale" yes I do think his credibility goes largely out the window.
Exactly, Chris Beacham is an entrepreneur cashing in on the UFO craze.
You obviously didn't read anything I said about them in the Marfa Lights debate, yet you clearly red everything about the skeptic's website. Please read the postings in the Marfa Light debate if you want my opinion on that issue.
Maybe, but there is nothing to say it IS a natural phenomenon. You seem to default to any natural explanation unless extrodinary evidence is presented. Ah-ha, but the clamant is responsible for the extrodinary evidence! Yes, aside from the photo, we have none. I'll hand you that, Q. That's why I was asking for more data - data on how the photographed object behaved... and that was data you didn't seem to care to look into. The point I am comming to however, is that you displayed upheval at my request for data which could contradict
your natural explanation. That's why I considered your approach to the question of this photo's authenticity to be unscientific. Q, you can't claim to be a skeptic if you choose not to follow the rules for logical debate. NO topic is "beneath" good thinking. All you do then, is fall into the trap of thinking sloppy, and when you do that you will get jumped for it by your opponent - and loose reputation and credibility.
Last edited:
John MacNeil
Registered Senior Member
Xevious, the person who refers to her/himself as "the Q" doesn't display any scientific curiosity and dumps on anyone who can think rationally. That is a sign of low intelligence and low tolerance, which that person, and some others, continuously display in this forum. Trying to get logic or reason out of them is a waste of type, since they are only interested in their childish disruption.
I have seen glowing orbs of light on a couple of occasion, both time up in the mountains. Once where there was no road, at the end of a lake, and once while driving on a mountain road. The one I witnessed on the mountain road, a red glowing orb, was in motion and passed above the vehicle, from the front to back, that I was a passenger in. Both the driver and I got a very good, close up look at it. I know that doesn't fit into the category of glowing lights which appear in one area with regularity, but it is indication that there are forces of nature which we certainly do not understand fully. The people who deny the existence of such phenomena, given that the evidence exists that something is occurring and it has been paraded before them, are the geeks of the modern era. Their skeptical view will increasingly be regarded as the quackery of the modern age.
-- Skeptic-- " a member of any of the ancient Greek philosophical schools that denied the possibility of any certain knowledge"-- Websters-first definition.
I have seen glowing orbs of light on a couple of occasion, both time up in the mountains. Once where there was no road, at the end of a lake, and once while driving on a mountain road. The one I witnessed on the mountain road, a red glowing orb, was in motion and passed above the vehicle, from the front to back, that I was a passenger in. Both the driver and I got a very good, close up look at it. I know that doesn't fit into the category of glowing lights which appear in one area with regularity, but it is indication that there are forces of nature which we certainly do not understand fully. The people who deny the existence of such phenomena, given that the evidence exists that something is occurring and it has been paraded before them, are the geeks of the modern era. Their skeptical view will increasingly be regarded as the quackery of the modern age.
-- Skeptic-- " a member of any of the ancient Greek philosophical schools that denied the possibility of any certain knowledge"-- Websters-first definition.
Xevious
Q, you can't claim to be a skeptic if you choose not to follow the rules for logical debate. NO topic is "beneath" good thinking. All you do then, is fall into the trap of thinking sloppy, and when you do that you will get jumped for it by your opponent - and loose reputation and credibility.
And I would gladly give up any credibility or reputation for just one piece of hard evidence. If nothing is forthcoming, then I need not waste my time with the rules for logical debate when it concerns ET visiting Earth. In other words, the topic is not only beneath "good" thinking, it is beneath thinking entirely.
Q, you can't claim to be a skeptic if you choose not to follow the rules for logical debate. NO topic is "beneath" good thinking. All you do then, is fall into the trap of thinking sloppy, and when you do that you will get jumped for it by your opponent - and loose reputation and credibility.
And I would gladly give up any credibility or reputation for just one piece of hard evidence. If nothing is forthcoming, then I need not waste my time with the rules for logical debate when it concerns ET visiting Earth. In other words, the topic is not only beneath "good" thinking, it is beneath thinking entirely.
John fires broadside:
Xevious, the person who refers to her/himself as "the Q" doesn't display any scientific curiosity and dumps on anyone who can think rationally.
How does that preclude you as a category ?
That is a sign of low intelligence and low tolerance, which that person, and some others, continuously display in this forum.
Translation; everyone is ganging up on me.
Trying to get logic or reason out of them is a waste of type, since they are only interested in their childish disruption.
Translation; no one will agree with my theories.
The people who deny the existence of such phenomena, given that the evidence exists that something is occurring and it has been paraded before them, are the geeks of the modern era
"Geeks of the modern era." I like that, John. But what you really mean is the people who deny the existence of ET visiting Earth for which no hard evidence has ever been paraded, don't you ?
Their skeptical view will increasingly be regarded as the quackery of the modern age.
I would be one of the first to stand up and admit "skeptical quackery" the instant hard evidence is produced. Until then, you'll get no quacks out of me.
Xevious, the person who refers to her/himself as "the Q" doesn't display any scientific curiosity and dumps on anyone who can think rationally.
How does that preclude you as a category ?
That is a sign of low intelligence and low tolerance, which that person, and some others, continuously display in this forum.
Translation; everyone is ganging up on me.
Trying to get logic or reason out of them is a waste of type, since they are only interested in their childish disruption.
Translation; no one will agree with my theories.
The people who deny the existence of such phenomena, given that the evidence exists that something is occurring and it has been paraded before them, are the geeks of the modern era
"Geeks of the modern era." I like that, John. But what you really mean is the people who deny the existence of ET visiting Earth for which no hard evidence has ever been paraded, don't you ?
Their skeptical view will increasingly be regarded as the quackery of the modern age.
I would be one of the first to stand up and admit "skeptical quackery" the instant hard evidence is produced. Until then, you'll get no quacks out of me.
John MacNeil
Registered Senior Member
You don't appear to know what a forum is, Q, so I'll post a description;
-- "a) an assembly, place, radio program, etc., for the discussion of public matters or current questions, b) an opportunity for open discussion" --Websters
If you do not discuss any of the evidence that people present, then how do you determine if the evidence is warrantable? Or not? Are you an expert in all fields? Or just a blowhard?
When you think that I need, or crave, your, or anyone else's, approval, you couldn't be more wrong. When I present evidence, I already know it's worth, or I wouldn't present it. I present such evidence for the purpose of discussion, only. I couldn't care less if you actually agree with me, or not. Your views are for you to develop for yourself, as mine are for me to develop for myself. You also know the worth of the evidence I present, or you would attempt to refute it and appear like a hero, instead of continually posting childish attack posts that only succeed in making you look immature.
If no one else, anywhere, agrees with any of my idea, then that is perfectly fine, as well. Since I am already confirmed in my beliefs, I don't need reinforcement for reinforcement's sake. When I post things that most people are unfamiliar with, and which are not endorsed by the corporate/science or the corporate/government, they are for discussion purposes, not for obliquely taking over the world. You behave as if discussing something you don't believe in is blasphemy. Where I, from my superior knowledge base, am comfortable discussing the subjects I present and many subject that others present. Although I must say, the threads on this forum would progress more readily if people interested in the topics presented would participate more with opinions and questions and less invective. But I do understand your point of view, regardless. You have staked out your claim as a skeptic and, with your lack of debate skills, you defend your obsolete position with vitriol.
-- "a) an assembly, place, radio program, etc., for the discussion of public matters or current questions, b) an opportunity for open discussion" --Websters
If you do not discuss any of the evidence that people present, then how do you determine if the evidence is warrantable? Or not? Are you an expert in all fields? Or just a blowhard?
When you think that I need, or crave, your, or anyone else's, approval, you couldn't be more wrong. When I present evidence, I already know it's worth, or I wouldn't present it. I present such evidence for the purpose of discussion, only. I couldn't care less if you actually agree with me, or not. Your views are for you to develop for yourself, as mine are for me to develop for myself. You also know the worth of the evidence I present, or you would attempt to refute it and appear like a hero, instead of continually posting childish attack posts that only succeed in making you look immature.
If no one else, anywhere, agrees with any of my idea, then that is perfectly fine, as well. Since I am already confirmed in my beliefs, I don't need reinforcement for reinforcement's sake. When I post things that most people are unfamiliar with, and which are not endorsed by the corporate/science or the corporate/government, they are for discussion purposes, not for obliquely taking over the world. You behave as if discussing something you don't believe in is blasphemy. Where I, from my superior knowledge base, am comfortable discussing the subjects I present and many subject that others present. Although I must say, the threads on this forum would progress more readily if people interested in the topics presented would participate more with opinions and questions and less invective. But I do understand your point of view, regardless. You have staked out your claim as a skeptic and, with your lack of debate skills, you defend your obsolete position with vitriol.
John
If you do not discuss any of the evidence that people present, then how do you determine if the evidence is warrantable? Or not?
Many attempts were made to get you to provide evidence for your claims. None was forthcoming hence, nothing to discuss. Do I need to go back and refresh your memory ?
Are you an expert in all fields? Or just a blowhard?
Yes, John, I'm a blowhard.
When I present evidence, I already know it's worth, or I wouldn't present it.
So where is the evidence that I may determine for myself its worth ?
You also know the worth of the evidence I present, or you would attempt to refute it and appear like a hero
I'm not interested in appearing like a hero. I'm interested in seeing your evidence so that I may agree with you.
Since I am already confirmed in my beliefs, I don't need reinforcement for reinforcement's sake.
Your beliefs are solely your beliefs and are not shared by others. Shouldn't some internal alarms be going off by now ?
When I post things that most people are unfamiliar with, and which are not endorsed by the corporate/science or the corporate/government, they are for discussion purposes, not for obliquely taking over the world.
If by 'unfamiliar' you mean 'nonsense,' then there is little reason for discussion.
You behave as if discussing something you don't believe in is blasphemy.
Amen to that.
Where I, from my superior knowledge base
Aha, I think we may have discovered the crux of the apostrophe. If ever you've made an asinine remark, this one tops them all.
Although I must say, the threads on this forum would progress more readily if people interested in the topics presented would participate more with opinions and questions and less invective.
Opinions and questions were presented. You failed to address them. No one agreed with your unfounded claims is the reason why the discussion went awry.
But I do understand your point of view, regardless. You have staked out your claim as a skeptic and, with your lack of debate skills, you defend your obsolete position with vitriol.
I've been asking you for evidence, as others have, which might support your claims. You've provided nothing that contains a shred of tangible evidence. The obvious errors in your claims had been pointed out to you time and again, errors which most high school students wouldn't even make. Then you stated JamesR didn't know what he was talking about, yet when invited to join in the thread to refute his comments, you turned tail and ran.
Your entire agenda in this forum is to spout irrational claims with no supporting evidence, then damn those who do not agree with you.
But of course, what do I know, I'm just a blowhard.
If you do not discuss any of the evidence that people present, then how do you determine if the evidence is warrantable? Or not?
Many attempts were made to get you to provide evidence for your claims. None was forthcoming hence, nothing to discuss. Do I need to go back and refresh your memory ?
Are you an expert in all fields? Or just a blowhard?
Yes, John, I'm a blowhard.
When I present evidence, I already know it's worth, or I wouldn't present it.
So where is the evidence that I may determine for myself its worth ?
You also know the worth of the evidence I present, or you would attempt to refute it and appear like a hero
I'm not interested in appearing like a hero. I'm interested in seeing your evidence so that I may agree with you.
Since I am already confirmed in my beliefs, I don't need reinforcement for reinforcement's sake.
Your beliefs are solely your beliefs and are not shared by others. Shouldn't some internal alarms be going off by now ?
When I post things that most people are unfamiliar with, and which are not endorsed by the corporate/science or the corporate/government, they are for discussion purposes, not for obliquely taking over the world.
If by 'unfamiliar' you mean 'nonsense,' then there is little reason for discussion.
You behave as if discussing something you don't believe in is blasphemy.
Amen to that.
Where I, from my superior knowledge base
Aha, I think we may have discovered the crux of the apostrophe. If ever you've made an asinine remark, this one tops them all.
Although I must say, the threads on this forum would progress more readily if people interested in the topics presented would participate more with opinions and questions and less invective.
Opinions and questions were presented. You failed to address them. No one agreed with your unfounded claims is the reason why the discussion went awry.
But I do understand your point of view, regardless. You have staked out your claim as a skeptic and, with your lack of debate skills, you defend your obsolete position with vitriol.
I've been asking you for evidence, as others have, which might support your claims. You've provided nothing that contains a shred of tangible evidence. The obvious errors in your claims had been pointed out to you time and again, errors which most high school students wouldn't even make. Then you stated JamesR didn't know what he was talking about, yet when invited to join in the thread to refute his comments, you turned tail and ran.
Your entire agenda in this forum is to spout irrational claims with no supporting evidence, then damn those who do not agree with you.
But of course, what do I know, I'm just a blowhard.
John MacNeil
Registered Senior Member
Q, you are talking about an entirely different thread. If you, or JamesR, or Mr.G., or anyone else wants to continue the thread in Science & Society, then go back there and address the evidence as I presented it and I'll be along shortly. All of the topics that are relevant can be discussed, in order. But if you ask me to present evidence and then don't discuss it, and instead ask for clarifications of generally known terms, as a way of avoiding discussing the evidence presented, then there really isn't a discussion.
If you read though that thread, you will see that I am the one who continually tried to advance the discussion, and it was you folks who shied away from it like it was a contagious disease. You may have convinced yourself that you were participating in the discussion, but none of your posts in that thread prove it.
If you read though that thread, you will see that I am the one who continually tried to advance the discussion, and it was you folks who shied away from it like it was a contagious disease. You may have convinced yourself that you were participating in the discussion, but none of your posts in that thread prove it.