Magical Realist:
Once you're done apologising to us all, perhaps we can discuss your latest closed-minded blunder: the Atlanta "orb" video that you posted from the rookie UAP analyser dude.
Clearly, the "orb" in that video is most likely a simple sighting of the planet Venus. What is most interesting about the subsequent discussion is the amount of rationalisation you have displayed when confronted by a few facts that, apparently are new to you, along with the anger you have displayed upon learning that, once again, you have made something a clown of yourself.
Let's trace the history of this, shall we?
First, there is the original video itself. You haven't been clear about who took this particular video. There was something about Newsweek that you posted, but when you were asked whether that article referred to the same video, you wouldn't answer the question, so we still don't know whether there's any connection. Perhaps you don't know, yourself, and don't care.
Anyhoo, there's the rookie guy's analysis video of the original video, which is what you posted.
Rookie guy makes a number of amateur blunders in his "analysis". He doesn't consider simple explanations. He doesn't twig to the fact that he might be looking at a planet. He guesses at the size of the "object", saying he thinks is might be as big as a school bus. But he has no idea how far away it is. He notes that the object is above some clouds, but he badly underestimates just how far above the clouds it is. So, school bus - no! Planet a fair whack of the size of Earth? That's more like it!
Then we come to
you, Magical Realist. When DaveC suggested that the "orb" was probably an out-of-focus shot of Venus, you
started by denying flat-out that Venus can be visible during the day:
The Atlantic City orb was clearly filmed in daylight. Tell me how anyone can film the planet Venus in daylight. And it's also clearly moving.
DaveC told you that the planet Venus is often visible during the day.
Also, you added
your own assumption, again, that it was the "orb" that was moving and not the clouds passing in front of it, based on nothing, just like Rookie Analyser Dude did.
After you learned - apparently for the first time in your life, if we are to take your clown act at face value - that Venus
can be seen during the day, you tried to switch things up by claiming that it could only ever be a "small" object if photographed:
LOL A thin faint little crescent only seen zoomed in with a camera. Nothing like what we see in the footage of the orb. This thing is bright and moving. Anybody else agree this looks like the planet Venus during the daytime? Be honest now..
Nervously, you LOLed. That's the tic that shows you're thinking about whether to double down on a previous error you made. "But I'm just back from a temporary ban for telling knowing lies. If I'm going to lie about
this, too, I'd better be subtle about it", I imagine you were thinking.
So, you post the usual clown-act blanket claim that you always make: that
this thing we're examining is
nothing like what it almost certain is. No analysis. No reasons for your conclusions. Just a bald-faced claim that you can't and won't try to support.
And, of course, you double down on your claim that it was the "orb" that was moving in the video, even though DaveC supplied you with the exact information required to cause any rational thinker to avoid jumping to that conclusion (which is, in fact, incorrect in this case).
DaveC patiently responds to you, but you're not willing to learn anything new from him. So you just double down on
your new claim that, whatever this "orb" was, it was "clearly NOT the planet Venus":
The video itself shows the orb clearly zoomed out compared to the clouds and then zoomed in. Clearly NOT the planet Venus which is invisible in daylight when zoomed out. Also those aren't clouds moving by. The witness said the orb was moving and that is exactly what the video shows..
This is very instructive. You just learned that Venus
is actually visible during the day, contrary to what you previously thought. But instead of pausing to let that new information sink in, you try to rationalise the inconvenient fact away: "Well, even if Venus can be visible in daylight, if it's visible it must only be visible when 'zoomed in' with a camera."
In other words, you were so desperate to try to deny what had just been taught to you - and so desperate to maintain the conclusion you immediately jumped to that the "orb" can
only be the woo - that you're now willing to
invent new "facts" that you know nothing at all about. That is, having had an area of personal ignorance exposed to your view, you decided that - instead of trying to learn something new - you will push the new knowledge to one side and just
make some shit up to prop up your prior, demonstrably wrong, belief.
This really is about as closed minded as you can get. Can anybody really be this stupid, or is this all part of the Magical Realist clown circus? I think, after all this time, it can only plausibly be the latter.
Notice, also, that by this point you're tripling down on your unsupported assumption that the clouds in the video weren't moving. Sure, "the witness" might have made the same mistake you made, but that just shows how witnesses are often unreliable when it comes to their interpretations about what they saw.
One shouldn't blindly trust the judgments of witnesses - especially non-expert ones.
Next, there was a bit more back and forth between you and DaveC, in which DaveC patiently tried to educate you about the many errors you'd made up to that point in the discussion. Instead of thanking him for teaching you some new things, you react with
anger at him.
It's understandable, I suppose, for somebody so resistant to learning anything new, to get frustrated and angry at himself for making the same kinds of simple errors over and over again, such that he tries to blame other people. But there's an easy fix for that, Magical Realist.
It's also possible that you're just angry that DaveC keeps "winning" the battle of wits with you about your woo, because you think you're smarter than him. Probably, you're also angry because none the woo you believe in ever really comes up to snuff when you present it for evaluation by some experts. And you are
really, deeply invested in that nonsense.
You will never learn anything if you stay closed minded, Magical Realist. My advice to you would be to drop the personal bullshit and open yourself up to actually learning something, for a change. Don't let your baggage turn you into a clown for real. Engage with another human being in an honest way for a change. You'll feel better about yourself if you do. I guarantee it.
Anyhoo, where are we at? There was this:
You must be such an embarrassment to your skeptic team. No wonder nobody ever says anything about your ridiculous claims: "Venus in the daylight!" lol! Yeah...
That's just you being a big baby, Magical Realist. At a loss for anything that supports what you want to believe about the "orb" video, you're reduced to just throwing a temper tantrum, lashing out at people trying to help.
I'll leave you with this:
The irony in this whole latest debarcle of yours over your silly claims about the visibility of the planet Venus is that
you could easily check for yourself.
If you got your arse up from your computer and went outside at the right time, you could probably get a decent look at Venus for yourself. You could
directly find out how bright it looks in daytime sky. You could even take a
real video of it at various levels of zoom and compare it to the UFO "orb" video.
But you won't do any of this, will you?
I'm almost flabbergasted that a man of your age has never looked up in the sky and seen Venus during the day. Maybe you didn't know what to look for? Maybe you have lived your whole life in a big city with lots of pollution that means you can't see stars and planets very well? Or maybe it has simply never occurred to you to look up in the sky to see what you can see if you really take a good proper look?
Surely it's not that you're actually too damn stupid to look around yourself once in a while. Tell me it's not that.
