I think it's very CLOSED MINDED to not be able to accept that you may be wrong. It's not neccesarily open minded to think unconventionaly, or to believe in something that is not mainstream. This is a grave missuse of the term 'open-minded'. What the term means is that your mind is open to many possibilities. As long as your mind is set and totaly convinced of something you cease to be open minded about that thing. It doesn't matter what that thing is. Believing (to the point of conviction) that something is true or not is the same thing. You are closed-minded either way. Personaly I don't believe that those photographs are in any way remotely evidence of alien life or structures on other planets, and in a way I am NOT open-minded about it. But I have a logical reason for my belief. It is based on probability and known facts.
Well, it is about the image. Not to be rude, though this will sound rude, you seem very arrogant, or snotty. You act like you know everything, because of you're education or I.Q. score, then suggest other's on here are not as smart as you and need to work to become as smart as you if they want to debate with you about anything in any number of fields. I could be wrong, but this is how I am seeing you thus far.
I have said repeatedly that the object merely look's like it COULD be an artificially built structure. Toward the end of this response you admit you are the one close minded, so what's your point? I could only be wrong if the image was an optical illusion, though nobody has illustrated HOW it's an optical illusion, thus you have no explanation for these structures except to suggest I'm close minded, when I am not, and you admit you are the one close minded. Talk about madness. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! I am open to any natural explanation, none of which you or anyone else has given except, "a rock". That's not an explanation, that's just being stupid. Open minded in this case would be considering that it's something other than natural, which I have done. You have not, so again you're the one who IS close minded as you admitted. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! No, as I've said before.. This object may not be artificial. However, it look's like it. More importantly, I have not heard any plausible natural explanation's that would account for apperance. Thus, again you are too close-minded even attempt to offer an explanation. There are other thing's on the moon besides rocks. I know you are not open-minded about it, but I am open minded about it. Thus reversing everything you said above rendering it completely useless.
Yeah, it's about the image, and understanding what the image tells you. Stryder gave some crappy advice about learning to interpret the image. I have a better idea of what you need to learn to interpret these images, because I used to work for a University, and knew the guys along the corridor, that did remote sensing and GIS, as I helped set up their computers. Nope, I don't find that rude at all. I perhaps do come across as arrogant, especially when I'm correcting someone or something I've corrected many times before, and lost patience. Stryder knows very little about science, but this doesn't stop him makng scientific assertions, which he mostly gets wrong. He thought he could use a cunning arrangement of pipes, and make water flow uphill. This is impossible, but he wouldn't accept it. He couldn't grasp the difference between inter, and intra molecular bonds. He keeps stating gravity is an electro-magnetic force, when there is no evidence for this. He's not very clever or well educated, but he likes to act like he is, and that does annoy me, and yes, I get snotty with him. I don't claim to know everything, btw, but what I do know, I can back up with evidence, and science, and cold hard facts. That I'm afraid, is how debate works. If you get into a debate, you need to arm yourself with facts. It's better not to make definite statements, until you can back them up. It's better to ask people to try and falsify your ideas, than to take offence when people do, because that what debates are about, your opinion, and other people's opinion. I think many people don't understand that this is a forum, not a blog, and that means debate, which means differing opinions. And quite frankly, if you aren't smart, you're easily outgunned. It seems people take offense to having their lack of smarts pointed out to them, but what is someone to do? Let someone carry on with their misconceptions for the rest of their life, and never explain why they are wrong, or correct people? Many of the members here are young enough to put on the right track, if they were truly open minded, and willing to accept that many of their pet theories and beliefs, were worthless. I could be wrong, but this is how I am seeing you thus far.[/QUOTE]
Okay, fair enough. There are no hard fact's when dealing with this subject matter. Merely images, which are interpreted by you and I. Assuming you consider yourself a debunker, yes you would accept hard fact's, as long as those fact's lead to a more mundane explanation of everything claimed. I've learned that images like these will "show" anything to a debunker, or fanatical skeptic. When you consider the incredible number of UFO cases which suggest the existance of ETI, yet people like you claim there is no evidence, then how in the hell could one image prove it to you? That will never happen, so I won't debate images with debunker's. It will never get anywhere.
Phlog, Is it me or do you have some sort of unsaid fetish about me? You seem to like saying my handle every other word, like it gives you some sort of exciting shiver down your back. You state that I don't know Science, But I tend to think you couldn't be further from the truth. Science itself is the pursuit of knowledge and there are many different areas and fields that get interpreted as modern day science. Admittedly I tend to utilise Philosophy and Metaphysics a great deal, but then again thats what you would expect if you are actively de-constructing or reverse engineering to get a better understanding of what ever subject matter you are dealing with. I can't help it if I'm not sat there with some "All you need to know about Science" book next to my desk, sometimes you just have to hypothesis and I do so rightly. I even suggest to the most part that if I output something I'm not 100% sure about, then it will lack quotations anyway (Therefore asserting my definitions plausability or correctness is futile, since it's usually written for the reader to test themselves. Otherwise I would be doing other peoples homework wouldn't I?) In the statement on Images, as I mentioned previous you don't need a degree to get into it, but of course it helps. As for comments about other things I mentioned in the past, well firstly they are not in context with the current topic, secondly you tend to bring them up and awful lot, I think it has something to do with that explaination about your name being based on the "proposed element of fire", which seemingly was infured to explain your "flaming rantings" like you're some sort of "Troll". Anyhow this gets further and further from the overall subject matter at hand. admittedly I've added to the tangent that seems to have occured, however I suggest people get back on topic. (If you want to moan Phlog pm me or blog on your site rather than causing even greater subject tangents)
No Stryder, I don't have some fetish about you, I just think you're an idiot. But also, a perfect example of a pseudo scientist, in that you aren't that clever, or well educated, but still hypothesize about things you clearly don't understand. By the way, that last post you made, was that from you, or the secret society that controls you with it's mind ray? It would be good to know.
Well, there could be, if it was investigated correclty. There could be physical evidence, damn well should be if you take everyone's claims at face value! Well, if the images, or footage doesn't show anything that cannot be explained as mundane, what reason is there to assume anything else? If I see good footage of a UFO doing something that I think an aircraft or other phenomena can't, I'll happily label it as a proper UFO, and maybe ETI. Until then though, I'll have to carry in sifting through the garbage that is offered. See, I'd love it to be true, I'd love to meet ETI, discover things about their planet, history, and evolution, BUT I'm not going to buy into the myths that snake oil salesmen on earth have for sale, I want facts, not frauds.
OMG! Rocks on the moon! I thought it was made out of green cheese! Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
Who's to say the stuff that floats off your keyboard is your own? Mind you I'm sure you would like the capacity to act hypocritically when proven wrong on occasion. As I mentioned Phlog, You don't need to "flame" on the forum, you could quite easily PM me or post it on your Blog.
Okay, then what kind of action's would an object have to perform in the air to be labled a UFO or ETI? I mean, what exactly are we talking about here? What exactly would the object need to do?
I think what Phlogistician is saying is that the term "UFO" need not be applied simply because an object is observed that cannot be specifically identified. I've witnessed many objects in the sky, particularly at night, that I could not readily ID with accuracy. But these objects left no reason to suspect that they were anything other than terrestrial aircraft or natural phenomena. "UFO" is a term we can all agree evokes thoughts of alien spacecraft, flying saucers, and the like. While technically accurate, to say a light in the night sky is an UFO merely because it cannot be readily proven to be a plane is wasteful. It's easier to operate under the assumption that the triangular or diamond formation of lights is simply the wing, nose and, perhaps, tail lights of an aircraft in take-off or landing configuration. A bigger mystery might be what is a plane doing in the area that it is observed if airports or landing strips aren't nearby, but there are many simple reasons for this as well, some of them nefarious and illegal. To be considered an UFO in the sense that it would require investigation, the object should be behaving in a manner impossible for terrestrial aircraft and common natural phenomena. Otherwise, pursuing the matter would be wasteful. That's not to say that the UFO must automatically be assumed to be extraterrestrial, but rather that it is merely of interest and has more probability of being extraterrestrial than objects that can be ruled out as behaving as terrestrial aircraft. It would also be important to point out that the ability to recognize normal behavior of terrestrial aircraft and common natural phenomena will vary from person to person, depending upon their experience and past observations with which they can draw comparissons. Side Note - From an anthropological point of view, I think it would be interesting if someone collected statistical data on the number of cameras in use today compared with the number of cameras in use 20 years ago, then correlate this to the numbers of photographs of alleged UFO's between the two periods. Does the number of photographs increase at the same rate as the number of cameras? Bear in mind that instant use cameras are more widespread than ever with the advent of the camera cellphone and other digital cameras. It seems intuitive that the number of UFO photographs should increase as should the likelihood that some of these photos would be clear and convincing. Yet we keep seeing a few images of blurred points of light. Another question that nags at me: why don't we see more UFO reports from amateur astronomers? Omni magazine ran an article in August 1993 that estimated the number of amatuer astronomers to be over 300,000. That this number of people routinely looking skyward would see the largest number of UFOs would seem logical. Yet they report the least number of UFOs compared to non-amateur astronomers. Are they simply better at screening or ruling out terrestrial aircraft and common natural phenomena?
Thank's for the reply. I agree that the object need's to do something cool. I would like to know exactly what you mean though. Like, what exactly would it need to do?
Land in my front yard would be a start. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! But as I said, I think we could agree that any behavior that cannot be readily assigned to a terrestrial aircraft or common natural phenomena would be enough. There have been many reported instances of this in association with UFOs: high speed changes in direction, separation into multiple objects, crashing into deserts, etc. From there, one can begin investigating and attempting to replicate the effect. I once watched a video of an alleged UFO linked by a spammer on this very forum. The object in question did not behave as a terrestrial aircraft should have... it appeared to stop, hover, rise, fall, move side-to-side, grow/decrease in size and/or luminosity, etc. The problem was that the explanation of firefly or other luminous insect was simpler and more probable than an ETI-UFO. Moreover, it was an effect that I had witnessed myself on more than one occasion and in the region that the video was alleged to have been shot (Texas). Of course the owner of the video didn't appreciate my candid explanation and proceeded to call me every name excluding "child of god." Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! Apparently he wanted to sell compact disks with this and other videos on it.
Well it took me awhile to even see anything even close to looking like a bridge. I do see what you're talking about but I don't think the pic is clear enough as to be proof of anything. As far as the spot light goes it is no light. It is a rock with light shining on it. If it were a light as you suggest than the shadows on the other rocks would be cast in the oposite direction. By the way I'm no skeptic. I've seen first hand things that can't be explained and I believe were of an E T origin.
This should be transfered to large bold font and posted at the top of every page of every thread dealing with UFO's.
Was that supposed to be an answer, Stryder? Answering a question with a question is a bit evasive. I asked a simple question, are your posts on here yours, or are they made by the people that control your mind? Sorry Stryder, but I'd rather expose your BS in an open forum. You talk crap, and plain make things up, and wrap it all up with semi plausible pseudobabble. You need to be debunked, out in the open. I'm not flaming you, I'm exposing you for what you are, btw. Take your profile, your occupation is listed as 'Holographic Euphuimology'. Hmmm, is that not a competely made up pseudo babble word? Because the _only_ reference I can find to it, is a google hit, to guess where? Your profile! It's not in any dictionary, it seems to be just more of your BS, Stryder. I don't have a blog. Pay attention, Stryder.
Phlogistician, You are not debunking anything currently, just acting an arsey narcist. As I've mentioned before, keep your posts in some form of alignment with the topic at hand, otherwise I'm going to have to bounce you out of here for being disruptive. I will not be answering personal questions to you through the forum, perhaps you should try the "personal ads" if you are into that kinky shiznit.
As an interested observer I see Phlogistician's posts, in general, as being much more pertinent, logical and scientific than your's Stryder. That's not an attack, merely a perception. Returning to the topic, alien artifcacts are likely to be hidden. Not crazy golf style features in the middle of an otherwise barren landscape. If we should look for anything it sholld be the subtle and obscure, not the mundane.
“ Originally Posted by SkinWalker Another question that nags at me: why don't we see more UFO reports from amateur astronomers? Omni magazine ran an article in August 1993 that estimated the number of amatuer astronomers to be over 300,000. That this number of people routinely looking skyward would see the largest number of UFOs would seem logical. Yet they report the least number of UFOs compared to non-amateur astronomers. Are they simply better at screening or ruling out terrestrial aircraft and common natural phenomena? ” ============================================================== by Ophiolite: This should be transfered to large bold font and posted at the top of every page of every thread dealing with UFO's. ============================================================= Ophiolite, read SkinWalker's statement carefully. He did not state that few astronomers witness UFO's. I don't know the actual percentage of astronomers that witness UFO's, but I once linked to a site in an older thread that listed hundreds of astronomers that did report UFO sightings, some of them internationally recognized professional astronomers. If I recall correctly, the listings were in response to the Omni article, or a similar article. I will try to locate the thread and the website, I don't know if the website is still active.
