Hmmmm...so you trust your brain more than you trust a sure thing? Mathmatical calculations (assuming the input data is correct) are a sure thing. The human brain is imperfect and can make mistakes. This is why magicians can appear to make things disappear, float, etc. They aren't defying the laws of physics, they are tricking your mind.

Okay, and Homer Simpson's drinking buddy was abducted by the....?

__________________
In your rush to call everyone "entrenched" or closed-minded or "limited" you fail to note that the "limit" here has a very natural boundary: that point at which the evidence stops. - JayUtah

Science fiction was never meant to be an educational tool. - Editor Amazing Tales

Hmmmm...so you trust your brain more than you trust a sure thing? Mathmatical calculations (assuming the input data is correct) are a sure thing. The human brain is imperfect and can make mistakes. This is why magicians can appear to make things disappear, float, etc. They aren't defying the laws of physics, they are tricking your mind.

No. I trust the math first. However you state balloon, where are yuor math figures on that. I don't know what it was. With nothing but your brain and no math you assume balloon?

Then you restate what I said to as Jay puts it, put words in my mouth. How do you defend a lack of bias. BS

http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=baa_1194994414

I noticed not a lot was said about this one. Here is an ex air controller stating that the government confiscated material and exerted pressure on witnisses to cover up.

This is the JAL incedent. The one where the pilot was grounded for two years for not keeping his mouth shut. And Phillip Klass declared they were seeing Venus. Thats a pretty long streatch for radar, but if you want to believe that please do so.

There is no cover up. I started out believing that, I don't any more.

You can make it a joke. Try to make me out a fool as you please. I'm a big boy, I can take it.

But those reports just keep coming in, even from traffic controllers. Guess you better fire them all cause people who see UFO's are all kooks and sure got no business controlling the safety of a sky full of aircraft.

The information that just keeps coming in is starting to make you guys look like Homer Simpson's drinking buddys.

Now I will assume you will deconstruct every word and prove to yourselves I am misguided, and my thinking is in need of correction. Then you can start on the motives of the witniss in this video to prove he is as unreliable as Homer Simpson.

Nobody is buying it anymore but please continue. It no longer irritates me and I am starting to enjoy the entertainment value, and all the wit.

ATCs are under-payed and overworked and like any human are prone to errors. not to mention equipment (outdated across the board) errors.

I find it interesting that anecdotal evidence and random human observation (visual) is relied upon as evidence for the UFO/Alien believers.

If one of these things has *multiple* reliable video, audio, and more than one or two potentially over-worked human observers then it starts to sound real. One slowly going by an airport full of people all of whom see it from various angles and some of which video tape it - along with ATC radar evidence may merit reconsideration.

Until then they are Loch Ness Monsters in the sky. And only that.

__________________
---"Why do things have to suck so bad?" a friend once asked me.
"Because space is a vacuum and that's a lot of suck." I replied.
(Actual quote)---

However you state balloon, where are yuor math figures on that.

Shifting the burden of proof. Besides, what "math figures" did you have in mind? Again you're just trying to throw people's statements back at them mindlessly.

I don't know what it was.

You ruled out balloon without being asked. You were asked how you were able to rule out balloons. You said because of the speed of the object. You owe us the process by which you estimated the speed.

How do you defend a lack of bias. BS

Bias must be proved, not claimed. As has been said, refusing to accept your statements without proof does not constitute a bias.

Thats a pretty long streatch for radar, but if you want to believe that please do so.

The radar argument was covered. Please address that before rejoining the point.

There is no cover up. I started out believing that, I don't any more.

State what you do believe. As I've said on a number of occasions, you are posting in the Conspiracy Theory section. As the initiator, you are required to propose and defend a conspiracy theory as the principal condition for posting. Please state what it is you actually plan to propose and debate.

I'm a big boy, I can take it.

Apparently not, because you keep complaining about how badly you're treated. Please provide your argument instead and answer the questions put to you.

Guess you better fire them all cause people who see UFO's are all kooks...

You keep saying things like this, but no one else here has. Must your arguments always be against things you wish we had said instead of what is actually said?

Now I will assume you will deconstruct every word and prove to yourselves I am misguided, and my thinking is in need of correction.

Again, you were advised upon joining that your claims would be aggressively challenged. If you don't wish to have your claims challenged, don't post here.

Yes, your thinking is in need of correction; but you persist in the mistaken notion that identifying specious reasoning is unfair play.

I will ask again, for all the good it does. You know the manner of debate here. You constantly express dissatisfaction with it. Yet you keep coming back for more. What is your purpose in posting here?

Nobody is buying it anymore...

As witnessed by all the people leaping nobly to your defense.

It no longer irritates me and I am starting to enjoy the entertainment value, and all the wit.

So would it be fair to say that you have no real discussion purpose in mind, and that you're just yanking our collective chain?

__________________
"Facts are stubborn things." --John Adams
Clavius Moon Base

So would it be fair to say that you have no real discussion purpose in mind, and that you're just yanking our collective chain?

I was hoping that somewhere along the line the consideration of would be taken seriously, but concede that as unlikly.

Until then they are Loch Ness Monsters in the sky. And only that.

Which is exactly how they want it. You play right into their hands, just like the crop circle higher consciousness believers.

They play us with manipulation of diverse belief systems, even our science skeptic.
They are users who employ superior technology to manipulate from the shadows.
Take what they want and give back nothing.
Star wars defense.
Shoot their little gray heads off and make them come to the negotiating table or leave the citizens of earth alone.

Can't say it any plainer than that. So I leave you to contemplate my sanity or consider there might be something to this.

Let me correct an earlier error. The guy in the vid was an FAA investigator not an ATC.

this ones a gift. This guy collects the funniest stuff on the web for your amusement.

When I need a good laugh I go here. He never fails to have something that just cracks me up. Enjoy

http://bitsandpieces.us/

That's a scientific statement.

They are being filmed all over the world. Thats a lot of balloons...

The Japanese Airline sighting. Phillip Klass said they were chased by Venus. Yet the radar says the object stayed on their six during a turn. The crew also saw Venus and stars and recognized the difference.

Granting the validity of the above statements...

Its classic UFO.

And if the one from Russia is valid it is clasic UFO as well.

... we still agree we don't know what it was/is?

I would like to see a prosaic explenation that covers all points and does not leave me saying, but what about this?

Me, too! Half the reason for science is, IMHO, to figure out which questions can be answered. Going from, "I don't know", to this:

Causes me to wonder at what you consider to be "prosaic", and indeed, poses questions to me about your ability to reason properly.

The thing every poster to this thread has been asking you - very specifically - is, well, "but what about this?".

Science doesn't answer questions as much as it asks questions. It's disturbing to read your answers to questions that haven't even been asked.

And this is exactly why you are so entertaining. Instead of even trying to check if a prosaic explanation might work you assume that your brain works better than everyone else here. I bet you haven't even thought about the fact that the area has some hills, making for even less intuitive airflows.

But it's ok Bart, since your brain works so well I can understand why the little green men want it so bad. I'd put up a big sign in my yard with "Hey, aliens! I'm perfect! Harvest meeeeee!".

__________________
"Ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge" -- Charles Darwin
"Your right to hold an opinion is not being contested. Your expectation that it be taken seriously is." -- Jason Thompson
Meet the OOONG TOE.

Man, you should be hiding in the cellar, instead of being behind your computer where they can get at you through the wires and manipulate you with subliminal messages and mind-altering plasmas! Now that I think of it, my mouse does feel a little funny the last few days...

__________________
"Ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge" -- Charles Darwin
"Your right to hold an opinion is not being contested. Your expectation that it be taken seriously is." -- Jason Thompson
Meet the OOONG TOE.

You don't need help, you are prefectly able to present you as fool on your own.

Following this thread doesn't show your assumptions to be true, almost nobody is buying your BS arguments, but maybe in your delusion you are a majority by your self.

What I find strange is this: why is Bart allowed not to answer direct questions?

Well, we can't really have definitive answers in a subject like this, only beliefs. So pressuring for a definitive answer is always going to fail.

__________________
New Orion's Arm Site . The Starlark . Against a Diamond Sky (OA Novella Collection) . OA Flickr set

Sure we can have answers for this subject matter that are within the realm of being true while bounded by certain probability parameters.

But where there's no objective, verifiable evidence, then there are no scientific answers.

The OP just won't admit this fact and seems incapable of uttering "I don't know." and leaving it at that.

Instead we get seemingly endless streams of speculation which it appears we are supposed to accept as fact.

Nope.

__________________
A person's name, or a mark representing it, as signed personally or by deputy, as in subscribing a letter or other document.

OOOOO...A challenge. Alright Einstein, I did take a look at the first video where you stated the object was moving at incredible speeds. I will assume that my guess that it is a balloon is correct. The object is 0.1" across on my screen and traverses 3" in roughly 2 seconds. Follow me so far? If it is a balloon, it would be 1 foot across. With a guess that the FOV is between 15-30 degrees, that means the balloon is roughly 115-239 feet away. Still paying attention. If so, then the angular speed is roughly 7.75-15 degree/2 sec. That means the distance traveled in 2 seconds is about 15-30 feet. The 30 foot number is the highest, so we are talking about a max speed of 15 feet per second. I hope you are still reading because this equates to roughly 10 mph. I admit there are assumptions and room for error but even if I was off by a factor of 3 (which I would consider significant) and it was actually 30mph, that still would not be unheard of for a balloon in flight. Therefore, we must consider your brain a faulty measuring device.


Which means you never read what I wrote about the radar contact. Additionally, Klass did not say it was Venus from what I recall. He suggested Jupiter.

Another claim you make but will never be able to evidence for.



Based on this little temper tantrum, I think you can not.

People make mistakes. I am not sure what planet you live on but here on Earth, nobody is infallible. I accept the potential for human error and live with it. You seem to think pilots, ATCs, etc are infallible and can never make an error in observation. Good for you. Now push the "I believe" button again and move on. I am not going to buy it without better evidence than what you have provided.


Feel free to take a "time out" as well. No TV for you young man until you start learning to think for yourself.

...consideration of would be taken seriously, but concede that as unlikly.

Speculation and misinformation masquerading as fact are never taken seriously here. You must know that by now, and that it is by design that such circumstances persist. Yet you keep posting. Therefore my question: why do you keep posting? For "entertainment value?" That would imply chain-yanking.

You will clearly be much happier at some place like Godlike Productions or Loose Change where the threshold to credulity is not as high.

__________________
"Facts are stubborn things." --John Adams
Clavius Moon Base

...the area has some hills, making for even less intuitive airflows.

Flying in the Salt Lake City area, one must beware of shears created by "canyon winds." If one is flying lower that the mountaintops (which is almost always the case), locally strong winds screaming out of the mouths of the canyons can seriously buffet a light plane. City-dwellers can experience the same thing on foot if the round a corner of a building and meet the wind suddenly. Except canyon winds have been clocked at 70 knots. There's a place on the top of Mount Erice where you can stand with your head in completely calm air, and reach your hand out over the precipice and feel 20 mph of wind flow.

Wind is rarely uniform.

__________________
"Facts are stubborn things." --John Adams
Clavius Moon Base

Man, you should be hiding in the cellar, instead of being behind your computer where they can get at you through the wires and manipulate you with subliminal messages and mind-altering plasmas! Now that I think of it, my mouse does feel a little funny the last few days

I am safe. I was never abducted so they aren't after my brain. If your mouse is vibrating you better wrap aluminum foil around your head. And foil shorts as well, cause them seem to want genetic material.

http://www.labyrinthina.com/sriyantra.htm

Maybe you have to buy into this kind of crappola to become a victim. People actually believe this stuff is some kind of comunication. Its just mythmaking for the gullible. Superior tech used to play the foolish. Would be next to impossible to do this on a hard surface without magical technology, so therefore it must be from a higher consciousness.

No physical proof so the skeptical mind is reassured that reality is intact.

I think they have a great deal of experiance at the power of confusion. I wonder how many worlds they harvest from. I just think they should be forced to adhere to fair trade practices.

No physical proof so the skeptical mind is reassured that reality is intact.

The skeptical mind doesn't look for "assurance." The skeptical mind looks for facts, lead they wherever. "Assurance" and other emotional responses are solely the bailiwick of the pseudoscientists, who wrongly assume that their motives must be the same as everyone else's motives, just applied in a different direction.

The skeptical mind looks at reality to see what it is. You instead seem to look to fantasy and pretend that it's reality. That's fine, except when you imply that everyone else who isn't so creatively provisioned must be closed-minded.

__________________
"Facts are stubborn things." --John Adams
Clavius Moon Base

BTW Bart, I showed my calculations on how I determined it can be a balloon. Can you show me your calculations on how you determined the object was moving at speeds that, if driven by wind, would knock down trees?

Presumably because no one's reported him to the mods.

__________________
Gillian

"Now everyone was giving her that kind of look UFOlogists get when they suddenly say, 'Hey, if you shade your eyes you can see it is just a flock of geese after all.'"

"You can't erase icing."

"I can't believe it doesn't work! I found it on the internet, man!"

Guys,

specifically Slang and Worldcruiser, I'm reminded of a episode of the Colbert Report when the U.S. ambassador to France was on.

In the discussion, Steven Colbert remarked as a question that it probably would not be a good idea to refer to the French as "Bidet sniffing, cheese eating, surrender monkeys"

After the Ambassador regained his composure without losing his composure, (a good trick all on its own) he stated that, "Indeed, that statement would probably not be condusive to constructive dialogue"

Hard enough to defend a bad idea without the not so veiled insults.

Basically saying if we were in the same room and you spoke to me like that to my face I would have blackened your eye already. Ergo, I can only conclude that this has to be wrong on some level.

Not crying for a mod yet, I'm just saying...

__________________
In your rush to call everyone "entrenched" or closed-minded or "limited" you fail to note that the "limit" here has a very natural boundary: that point at which the evidence stops. - JayUtah

Science fiction was never meant to be an educational tool. - Editor Amazing Tales

They play us with manipulation of diverse belief systems, even our science skeptic.
They are users who employ superior technology to manipulate from the shadows.
Take what they want and give back nothing.
Star wars defense.
Shoot their little gray heads off and make them come to the negotiating table or leave the citizens of earth alone.
This is absolutely ludicrous.
To quote John McEnroe: "You can't be serious!"
...so they aren't after my brain.
Now this statement I will readily believe...

I think they have a great deal of experiance at the power of confusion.
Here we go again... ("they" do not seem to be the only ones with a great experience in the power of confusion....)
I wonder how many worlds they harvest from.
You must be kidding. No, suppose you aren't...
I just think they should be forced to adhere to fair trade practices.
What the heck do you mean by this sentence?

Now in all fairness: do you consider this logical thinking? These are pure tall tales. If you want to believe it, do so by all means, but don't present these type of statements here, since you have no proof (as you keep saying).

Fair point. I should have phrased my response differently, there was no need for the exaggerated reply. Should follow my personal rule better, not to reply immediately when angry or irritated.

__________________
"Ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge" -- Charles Darwin
"Your right to hold an opinion is not being contested. Your expectation that it be taken seriously is." -- Jason Thompson
Meet the OOONG TOE.

Because all the things associated make no sense. Three inch deep marks apperaring in a hard baked surface would take months to produce, much less producing a complex design.

http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=268_1213632479
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arecibo_reply

These things are rediculous. Yet they appear so quickly and of such complexity that it would be next to impossible for hoaxers to do this in a few hours. Some guy fakes a vid of balls of light making crop circles. What next?, real balls of light are seen making them.

Whatever silly fancy people come up with then "they" start playing into it. If meaningful communication were the intent then just show up and say hello. Manipulate from the shadows. Play into silly beliefs. Keep the physica proof scarce so the skeptics can dismiss. There is an almost endless stream of BS fed to abduction victims. It is a divide and conquer mentality.

The FAA investigator was told to keep it quiet and the materials taken. Obviously somebody in defense is taking it seriously, kudos to them.

BTW Bart, I showed my calculations on how I determined it can be a balloon. Can you show me your calculations on how you determined the object was moving at speeds that, if driven by wind, would knock down trees?

Make the balloon bigger and further away. Now it is picking up speed. Yet we see no evidence of anything else waving in a stiff wind.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YJnoEb2votk

Angels dancing in the sky. LOL

And look back at the orb link I gave. They are being filmed day and night. Every rediculous sighting gets reinforcement by more sightings.

They only thing that makes any sense is that we are being played like a fiddle. When I first started looking into this stuff my practical mind in a nuts and bolts universe rejected it all as fantasy. But they eyewitness accounts, vids, and pixs just keep coming. Some are hoaxes sure.

But some are real phenomena, and if they were to be accepted at face value then reality starts coming unravled. So I conclude they are all mostly hoaxes, just that some of the hoaxers are demonstrating technology advanced to the level of magic.

The only practical solution that covers all the bases, including the abduction thing, is that we are being spoofed. The purpose is to make it easier to take advantage of us.

The thing about a good CT is that it requires no proof. If there were proof it wouldnt be CT it would be established fact.

A "them" capable of producing all this sleight of hand must also know a great deal about sociology of more primitive cultures. They know what our science would require as proof. Think they are going to let that happen? no way.

Go make that form in the Oregan hard pan and see how much work is involved. No way human hoaxers are going to do that overnight. Just because it was done with advanced technology dosn't rule out hoax, it just brings into question the motive and source.

All the sightings and associated stuff adds up to a hoax. But it is the hoaxers identity I question.

Can you show me your calculations....
You did not answer astrophotographer's question....

Why, I don't know, sounded just fine to me . . .

I asked you to prove there was a stiff wind. If the balloon were 3 feet across, the distance traveled would be 90 feet in 2 seconds. This is still 30 mph, which is a strong gust but nothing that could knock down trees and certainly with in a normal range of winds one might expect in the troposphere without a storm. Make all the assumptions you want but I demostrated a small balloon could accomplish the feat you stated could not be accomplished by a balloon. The balloon explanation can not be eliminated and, therefore, is considered a valid explanation over an alien spaceship to identify this object.

Am I missing something. How does the FAA relate to the videos of a crop circle? Feel free to explain yourself intelligently (if you can).

BTW, nice to see that my old pal Maussan is also in this clip. Ring those alarm bells when you see Mexico's leading UFO conman up there endorsing something.

Crop circles are made by people, they have admitted it and they have been filmed doing it. how would you tell one of these 'hoaxes' from a 'real' one?

When enything that happens or doesn't happen and when obvious contradictions fit your 'theory' doesn't it tell you that youhave nothing?

__________________
All Moderation in Purple
To report a post (even this one) to the moderation team, click the reporting icon in the upper-right corner of the post:
─────────────────────────────────────────────
◄Rules For Posting To This Board ► ◄Forum FAQs ► ◄ Conspiracy Theory Advice ► ◄ Alternate Theory Advice ►

The thing about a good CT is that it requires no proof. If there were proof it wouldnt be CT it would be established fact.

Instead of presenting piecemeal, disjunct assertions, couldn't you just open a separate thread and take time to present your conspiracy theory in an orderly fashion, and the reasoning behind it to make you believe the speculation is correct? A lot easier to discuss, then throwing out cryptic statements. (If it also entails a number of pre-existing CT's, then identify them)

Include all your elements: alien abduction, farming, crop circles, government cover-up, intelligent spaceships, whatever. But a CT is not a carte blanche to speculate unfoundedly. There must be some foundation to begin with from which to extrapolate and speculate. Make references to your sources. Show how you "connect the dots" and arrive at what you have described as "a logical conclusion".