[HOAX]Mystery Space Machines, by John Walson[HOAX]

reply to post by ngchunter

“If we see that a rose bush blooms in spring once, twice or even three times, can we be sure that it shall bloom in the fourth?

We say that something is as sure as the sun rising, but who amongst us knows for which day God will cease allowing us this privilege?

So, if a man is a liar once, twice or even thrice, does it make him a liar the fourth time around? And what of the man who was once or twice truthful? Do we stand upon that to trust his every word?

I say to you that nothing is as certain as uncertainty because we do not have access to the knowledge that grants assurity to all things. Our determinations are as frail as our existence and our logic as tenuous as the moment when we arrived upon it.”

-Clarence Darrow (Pocket Book of Quotations – July 1952)

Originally posted by redoubt
reply to post by ngchunter

 

“If we see that a rose bush blooms in spring once, twice or even three times, can we be sure that it shall bloom in the fourth?

We say that something is as sure as the sun rising, but who amongst us knows for which day God will cease allowing us this privilege?

So, if a man is a liar once, twice or even thrice, does it make him a liar the fourth time around? And what of the man who was once or twice truthful? Do we stand upon that to trust his every word?

I say to you that nothing is as certain as uncertainty because we do not have access to the knowledge that grants assurity to all things. Our determinations are as frail as our existence and our logic as tenuous as the moment when we arrived upon it.”

-Clarence Darrow (Pocket Book of Quotations – July 1952)

You wouldn't be saying that if this was a mainstream scientist who had plagiarized someone else. The hypocrisy and double standard here is amazing. If he can't even track ISS without lying and stealing, then why do you think he's telling the truth about secret space ships? This lack of intellectual rigor is why mainstream people scoff at ufology. This guy has lied repeatedly and still people fall for it. Why? Fool me once shame on you, fool me twice...

[edit on 8-1-2010 by ngchunter]

reply to post by ngchunter

You wouldn't be saying that if this was a mainstream scientist who had plagiarized someone else. The hypocrisy and double standard here is amazing.

You assume a lot, lol.

Actually, the point is that we tend to be extremists here in our endeavours to understand extremes. It is probably natural to do so but... it doesn't necessarily make it right.

It's just my opinion but... when dealing with unknown things such as those subjects that grace this board, I would think that non-determination would be the best foundation to build upon because in point of fact, we do not have all the answers to most any of the questions.

It should be left to the individual to decide.

Originally posted by redoubt
reply to post by ngchunter

 

You wouldn't be saying that if this was a mainstream scientist who had plagiarized someone else. The hypocrisy and double standard here is amazing.

You assume a lot, lol.

You'd be foolish to trust a scientist after he had been proven as a plagiarist.

It's just my opinion but... when dealing with unknown things such as those subjects that grace this board, I would think that non-determination would be the best foundation to build upon because in point of fact, we do not have all the answers to most any of the questions.

You have the answer here, he's a sham and a liar. His method has been recreated on video save for the shape morphing. I've already told you can morph the shape just by adjusting focus, but you'd rather believe the guy who lies because the lie is more interesting than the truth.

[edit on 8-1-2010 by ngchunter]

reply to post by ngchunter

You have the answer here, he's a sham and a liar. His method has been recreated on video save for the shape morphing. I've already told you can morph the shape just by adjusting focus, but you'd rather believe the guy who lies because the lie is more interesting.

Perhaps. I won't rule that out. But would it not be better for each person to arrive at this conclusion? Are we not, each of us, smart enough to make up our own minds? And if we're not, then anything more is... what? Playing the part of shepherd?

Your opinion has been duly noted. If there is a sham and a liar present, then we shall each surely find it too. Offer the opinion as an aide to our research, not as a stone to weigh us in our deliberations.

That's all I am suggesting. Nothing more, nothing less.

ADDENDUM:

I wrote a post on the general subject about a year and a half ago, questioning many things about the subject. Please feel free to review for any mistakes...

www.abovetopsecret.com...

...




[edit on 8-1-2010 by redoubt]

Originally posted by redoubt
If there is a sham and a liar present, then we shall each surely find it too.

If you haven't figured that out yet you never will. Myself and others who pointed out that shifting the focus will shift the shape aren't just offering our opinions, we're offering our own experience, and unlike JLW, we aren't liars. I don't have a video camera appropriate for this at the moment and I don't have the mirrors waveguide has, but I do know that shifting focus will cause the object to look complete different, I proved that with the plane image.
[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/200ab0d2acc1.jpg[/atsimg]
I think people are under-appreciating the seriousness of plagiarism and what that should mean for a person's credibility and reputation.

[edit on 8-1-2010 by ngchunter]

Originally posted by ngchunter

Originally posted by UfosExiZt
reply to post by ngchunter

 

Then provide the video showing the morphing objects being fake if you can. I would really like to see it, if it exists.

He's a proven liar and plagiarist, there's no need to give you a video of anything. My primary planetary video camera for my telescope is currently out of commission and shorting out anyway, so the best I can do are stills. Unless you can show me someone else who isn't a plagiarist liar who has repeated JLW's supposed morphing object discovery and given the method for it then the whole thing should be thrown out.

That may be so.
But you saying this wouldn't hold up in a court room.
You need to proove the videos are faked in the morphing.
I haven't seen a video prooving this aspect to be fake, and hosestly I haven't seen anything else to strongly suggest it is a hoax either, and I read the whole page trying to proove this this as a hoax.

So if you can't provide the video, then you haven't prooven anything.

Originally posted by UfosExiZt
That may be so.
But you saying this wouldn't hold up in a court room.
You need to proove the videos are faked in the morphing.
I haven't seen a video prooving this aspect to be fake, and hosestly I haven't seen anything else to strongly suggest it is a hoax either, and I read the whole page trying to proove this this as a hoax.

So if you can't provide the video, then you haven't prooven anything.

Wrong. Every JLW video would be discounted in a court room once it was shown that he is a plagiarist. Once a witness is discredited, nothing they provide is to be trusted.

reply to post by ngchunter

Wrong.
You can't provide the evidence of morphing videos being fake.
This means this aspect hasn't been prooven to be a hoax.
Case closed.

Mystery unsolved.


[edit on 9-1-2010 by UfosExiZt]

Originally posted by UfosExiZt
reply to post by ngchunter

 

Wrong.

Oh really? So you honestly think this would fly in a court of law after it's been shown that the witness had to plagiarize someone else's work to prove they had the basic ability to track satellites?

You can't provide the evidence of morphing videos being fake.
This means this aspect hasn't been prooven to be a hoax.

Wrong, I already provided the evidence, you ignored it as I expected you would and tossed out yet another "morphing sequence." Since the plagiarist can't even demonstrate a basic ability to track and image known objects but instead steals other people's work he's nothing more than a hoaxer. He has how many hundreds of videos out there? You and I both know it's not practical to replicate every single one of them! How many other "strange aspects" are you going to pull out of your hat every time I replicate the aspect?

[edit on 9-1-2010 by ngchunter]

Originally posted by ngchunter

Originally posted by UfosExiZt
reply to post by ngchunter

 

Wrong.

Oh really? So you honestly think this would fly in a court of law after it's been shown that the witness had to plagiarize someone else's work to prove they had the basic ability to track satellites?

Yes that is correct.
You can't proove that someone ate an ice cream and then accuse him of shooting the ice cream man.
You have failed to proove that the morphing aspects of videos are faked.
If you can't proove this, all you do is speculate.

Originally posted by UfosExiZt
Yes that is correct.

No, it's not. He's claiming the ability to track satellites and that he used that ability to track previously unknown satellites, spaceships and such. It's been proven he lied about the ability to track satellites, which is a prerequisite to his claimed discovery.

You can't proove that someone ate an ice cream and then accuse him of shooting the ice cream man.

What is that supposed to mean? It has nothing to do with what I'm saying whatsoever. What I'm saying is that you can't claim to have eaten ice cream after it's been proven you lied about having a mouth.

You have failed to proove that the morphing aspects of videos are faked.

It doesn't matter what aspects of the videos I do or do not recreate if the skill needed to acquire the videos honestly is proven to be a lie. He's a plagiarist, that alone invalidates his word as being good enough and demands that any discovery he made be validated externally, which it hasn't been. On top of that, the stuff he plagiarized was supposed to be his proof that he had the skill needed to track spacecraft. Since that proof is now disproven, everything built upon that foundation collapses.

reply to post by ngchunter

How do you know he can't track objects in space then?

Also he has filmed the moon in greater detail than most if not all others, has he not?

Originally posted by UfosExiZt
reply to post by ngchunter

 

How do you know he can't track objects in space then?

The question is whether he can track satellites or not, not the moon. I can personally vouch for the difficulty of doing the former while the latter is incredibly simple with his telescope. He lied about being able to do the former and he had to steal someone else's work to feign having the skill to do it.

Also he has filmed the moon in greater detail than most if not all others, has he not?

No, he has not. I've seen much greater detail achieved by others, even myself (and I'm still far from the best). I dare you to show me where he showed famous Clavius crater in greater detail than this:
[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/c96a7d53bbed.jpg[/atsimg]

reply to post by ngchunter

How do you know he lied about his ability to track objects in space then?

Originally posted by UfosExiZt
reply to post by ngchunter

 

How do you know he lied about his ability to track objects in space then?

Why do you keep asking the same irrelevant question? The question is not whether he can "track objects in space" - the moon is an object - the question is whether he can track satellites or not. His proof of being able to do so was plagiarized, he lied and took the credit for someone else's ability. When someone does that you should rightly realize they lied about their own skill to you, failure to do so is the sign of a stunning lack of intellectual honesty. The logic used to get you to this point is literally no different than just rejecting a video recreation of his "morphing" effect while saying "How do you know he lied about his morphing video then?" You've asked for just such a video, in spite of this fact, which is highly suggestive of a dishonest request meant as a bluff, not as an honest question.

reply to post by ngchunter

You still have mostly just oppinions about him, and very little if any proof.
How do you know all the objects in his videos wasn't in space and wasn't morphing?

You don't seem to be able to give a good answer to this.

Originally posted by UfosExiZt
reply to post by ngchunter

 

You still have mostly just oppinions about him, and very little if any proof.

So you deny he's a plagiarist liar then? That's not an opinion, it's a proven fact.

How do you know all the objects in his videos wasn't in space and wasn't morphing?

You don't seem to be able to give a good answer to this.

I so predicted this would be your response, and I haven't even tried to recreate his telescopic videos yet. The fact is the burden was on him to first prove he could track satellites, a necessary skill to track these alleged objects. He lied about that ability, which disproves the validity of the rest of his videos. Your twisted logic causes you to trust him when he says he has that ability even after it's shown he lied about it, so naturally you'll never accept any level of proof that his videos were made using simple hoaxing techniques.

You improperly downplay the seriousness of plagiarism, and that is a tragedy, but let's say I post a video showing this "morphing" technique replicated on video as you requested, aren't you going to just repeat what you just said? If so, you were being dishonest by even asking for proof that I could re-create his morphing technique. I'll do it anyway, not to try to change your mind since clearly you're not going to, but just as a warning post for anyone else who finds his stuff to be trustworthy in the future. It's truly infuriating to see a colleague have his work stolen by a thief, and it's only made worse when people continue to assume the thief was telling the truth.

[edit on 14-1-2010 by ngchunter]

reply to post by ngchunter

You kind of hit your head on the spike there I believe.

You can't really proove he hoaxed it all, but you strongly believe so.

There is a huge difference.

Yet the thread is in the hoax section despite of this....

Originally posted by UfosExiZt
reply to post by ngchunter

 

You kind of hit your head on the spike there I believe.

How so?

You can't really proove he hoaxed it all, but you strongly believe so.

There is a huge difference.

No, I did prove he hoaxed it just by proving he lied about being able to track satellites, furthermore I can prove how he faked the "morphing" effect you're talking about. You will never accept any evidence as proof he hoaxed it, but there's a huge difference between what you are willing to believe and what is provable. Just because I can't prove it to your satisfaction doesn't mean I can't prove it. There's no way to prove it to your satisfaction because you'll never be satisfied with any level of evidence, though you attempted to mislead people into think you were being reasonable by implying that video showing the morphing effect would satisfy you. It can however be proven to be a hoax, regardless of whether or not you're willing to accept the truth.

[edit on 14-1-2010 by ngchunter]