Never before seen UFO photos - Debunkers?

Originally posted by queenannie38

well, since you missed page 8 altogether, it certainly is possible you missed more than that, isn't it?

You should have waited and read all my posts as I have responded to most of what you are asking but let me give you something to play with for a bit.

I did not miss page 8 at all. I just understand that things posted on page 8 hardly constitute intent in the opening post. Unless the opening post was 8 pages long........nope.


P.S. - that was your answer to my asking where the OP claimed to discredit all pictures everywhere. I feel like something is missing.

Oh wait, nevermind. I can be lazy too.

i have several, a lot, of comments to add to this thread but since i don't want to add to the post count of a thread that i feel is a true misrepresentation of what ATS intends to be and what i know it to be, more often than not, i am going to put all i can in one post and hopefully leave it at that

I answered everything you addressed to me prior to your posting so in the spirit of not raising the post count.....

[edit on 8-7-2010 by K J Gunderson]

Those pictures sure fooled me. But the third one already looked kinda hoaxed...the shadow didn't match properly and that's what makes you think somebody faked it...

Originally posted by The_Zomar
I admit I did call people fools.

in your defense, you did do it all on the same day, i believe, so maybe you were just having a moment. it happens from time to time, even for an esoteric teacher ...

I simply can't understand how anyone could be offended from this thread. The only way you could be offended is if you immediately believed those photos to be real and found out that you are the kind of person that this thread was attempting to correct.

i was not offended by the post, just some of the assertions made in it, as well as the intentions behind it, which was to do more than provide information concerning how photoshopping can be used to make pictures that are not credible. What you are implying by doing this is that most pictures should not be trusted becuase most pictures are "created" by those who cannot be trusted. this was offensive to not me, but the species i allegedly share 99.7+% of the same identical dna with

at no point did i take you off my friends list, or put you on my respected foes list, mind you. i did learn a few things by your efforts and by reading through the responses on this thread more than 3 times already. and i recognize you have skills with photoshopping and graphic designs where as i admittingly have less skills in this area. But the environment you are assisting to create is one where people who have photos will not bring them to the light of day due to like minded people who choose to dismiss most if not all photos because of the assumed intentions of whomever took the photo or video or shared their story about an encounter, etc.

i an atmosphere of ridicule and relluctance to believe others, and the history of what happened to those who did share their stories, it is more likely that people withold information about ufos because they do not need the additional stress in their daily lives, rather than that they faked the photos in the first place. But i confess this is my opinion based upon what i have been exposed to about the phenomenon over the years.

i would like to add, i would not have burnt any calories responding to your op and the posts herein if the engagement of our collective logistical skills could not produce some intersting information and promote the sharing of thoughts, ideas, & stuffs.

i said earlier in one of my first posts that i appreciated your efforts, i did star two of your posts other than the op, but i haven't flagged the thread, yet....

I am not out for laughs.

laughs are ok friend, just not the laughing too much at post contributors. i'm willing to bet that if aliens do exist and have visited us, maybe they have a sense of humor, too. and sometimes ufo ideas can be funny, but we do not need to post more than ten or more of these: to get a point across, nine are enough, i think. (not saying you did, but some ATSers do put a dozen or more in there posts.)

I am not saying UFO's don't exist.

i know. i understand this. but the calling into question the gullibility of people is calling into question how they percieve with their senses their own experiences, i think. People who have produced ufo photos have recieved far more criticism than benefits of fame or the joy of making others look gullible or naive. people who have such encounters are already full of questions about them and what it meant. there may also be psychological long term effects of such encounters. and to labelled a liar or someone who is unworthy of being trusted because they spoke out about it makes them even worse off, i think.

And I wasn't trying to show my PS "skill"

if you did those thing in 15 minutes like you said, you did show off your PS skills, and you did provide examples of how technologies in 2010 can produce fake ufo photos. you should be congradulated for at least this much. I just will adamantly argue that it is not the case that most photos and those who took the photos are untrustworthy.

Please read the entire thread before you post.

there is some good advice for people, and if they cannot read the entire post, at least admit they haven't done so and are responding to the op. this would be a good thing.

Esoteric Teacher - Please stop trying to derail my thread. I don't care about what photos of blobs you found on the internet. Whether it is a UFO or not, this isn't the thread to debate it. Make your own thread.

you brought up the trustworthiness of people and ATSers by stating that their intentions for such photographs are not trustworthy because they are so easily faked.

i would dissagree that i am efforting to derail your thread.
i'm on par with the statements that have been presented in this thread, and i have the right to address posts made in this thread and the opening post concerning why or why not most if not all ufo photographs are baseless and must no longer be trusted due to new technologies.

i applaud you for your efforts to demonstrate that photos can be altered, i dissagree with assuming most people who bring such photos to light are no longer credible due to the fact that people now possess such technologies available to make them.

perhaps we should agree to re-direct your thread in a mutual way towards a more productive direction?

i'm curious, how many questions would you have for someone who brought a photograph to your house and presented it as a photograph of an unidentified flying object?

how many questions would ther be, how many follow-up questions to the anwers of the first questions would there be (..etc) and how many personal inquiries would ther be about the person's credibility as a reliable individual, in order to determine their intentions behind bringing such a photograph to other peoples' attention?

this is what i have been wondering about reading through some of the post contributions from ATSers that i have read over the years.

it is not the technology you brought into question.
it is not only the photographs you brought into question.

it is also the intentions of the individuals producing such photographs that you brought into question, and concluded that this is why photographs should not be trusted.

if i adopted your outlook on this particular issue, and i saw a ufo while driving around on a country road, why should i bother to pic up my cell phone and take a picture of it at all, if most people are going to believe it is not to be trusted anyways?

reply to post by queenannie38


OP = Original Poster
OT = Original Topic

Making a puddle as I read your post, I think not, that is a very immature reference and I hope this is not the new direction of ATS.

I did not say it was OK for the original poster (OP) to call anyone anything, I was pointing out to another poster their incorrect direction towards where the comments came from. I did not condone the insults one bit.

In the original topic (OT) it was pointed out how people tend to not look at the evidence before making judgments, which has been shown by some posts on this thread. The original poster (OP) should have chosen his words better than he did when responding to comments, but the original topic (OT) itself was very much on target to how the UFO forum has become.

[edit on 7/8/2010 by AlienCarnage]

[edit on 7/8/2010 by AlienCarnage]

Originally posted by K J Gunderson
reply to post by Esoteric Teacher

 

LMAO!!!!!

This is exactly why I was asking you to show me what you were talking about. Your specific examples are well, lacking at best? The OP never called anyone fools.

keep laughing, even the openning poster disagrees with you, post right before yours (2 min difference), but plenty of time to read through the thread before relinquishing your credibility based upon the facts:

Originally posted by The_Zomar
I admit I did call people fools.

again?

Originally posted by The_Zomar
I admit I did call people fools.

Originally posted by K J Gunderson
reply to post by Esoteric Teacher

 

LMAO!!!!!

This is exactly why I was asking you to show me what you were talking about. Your specific examples are well, lacking at best? The OP never called anyone fools.

your credibily has some lack there of

Originally posted by AlienCarnage
reply to post by queenannie38

 

OP = Original Poster
OT = Original Topic

and the teacher becomes a student once again..

i have been using the "OP" do refer to both the original poster and the original post for over 5 years. i guess lucky me, i learned something today!

hip hip hurray,
ET

Yawn, this troll thread still going?

The liar---I mean OP (We have proof they are a liar, so I am not insulting.)

The liar, has again said another lie!

At least I am not the only one who smells the shenanigans, as it appears the OP is in bed with the MODS...

Again, I say thank you for contributing to the worthlessness that is ATS.

I remember when this used to be a "good site", before mods were sleeping with thread starters.

(Only conclusion I can come to, since the thread is against the rules yet still stands. (Remember, it has been reported several times.)

Originally posted by K J Gunderson

Originally posted by Esoteric Teacher

Originally posted by K J Gunderson

I usually enjoy your posts quite a bit. This one...? Assumptions and delusions are two different things. "Misperceptions" is not a mental illness, symptom, or even a word.

misperceptions is not a word according to whom?

i think you may have contracted a misperception...

The English language.

mis·per·ceive (mspr-sv)
tr.v. mis·per·ceived, mis·per·ceiv·ing, mis·per·ceives
To perceive incorrectly; misunderstand.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

misper·ception (-spshn) n.
Source:www.thefreedictionary.com...

Can you read? You looked up "misperception' and provided the result of "mispercieve."

Not only are those two different words, neither of them is an English word. Try again.

yes, i can read. & although the word you accuse me of using is not a word in your vocabulary, the link and the word according to a free online dictionary does exist, and at your request, i will try again:

misper·ception (-spshn) n.
Source:www.thefreedictionary.com...

reply to post by Esoteric Teacher


Why do you try, that person has already admitted they do not read/research.

Remember, you have to hand everything to them on a silver platter!

Like the quotes from the OPer that show where he is a liar, and "picking on" others.

They just REFUSE to read them. Then they TELL us to do more reading...classic hypocrisy!

Fnord fnord, fnord fnord fnord? Fnord!

(EDIT To fix: Fjnord to Fnord)

[edit on 7/8/2010 by adigregorio]

Originally posted by Esoteric Teacher

keep laughing, even the openning poster disagrees with you, post right before yours (2 min difference), but plenty of time to read through the thread before relinquishing your credibility based upon the facts:

Originally posted by The_Zomar
I admit I did call people fools.

Nope. He never disagreed with me. You have twisted the context from your original contention into any claim of foolishness found anywhere, even as far in as page 8. The OP seems to have just admitted that in light of the new context and twisted accusation, you got something there.

The fact that you have to twist and reach so far in order to back up what you originally said is indeed funny.

First 'the OP started this thread to call people fools.' Then 'he started this thread in attempt to make people look foolish and call them fools for it.' Finally, on page 8 he does indeed call admitted and exposed fools fools for being foolish and you claim you proved your point.

OK!



[edit on 8-7-2010 by K J Gunderson]

Originally posted by Esoteric Teacher


yes, i can read. & although the word you accuse me of using is not a word in your vocabulary, the link and the word according to a free online dictionary does exist, and at your request, i will try again:

misper·ception (-spshn) n.
Source:www.thefreedictionary.com...

If you could read you would see where I already acknowledged your

"source"



Give up.

Hey, look what else I found in your dictionary...

ir·re·gard·less (r-gärdls)
adv. Nonstandard

That is not a word either.

Sorry the pictures in this thread upset you so much but I see no point in further letting you attempt to suck me down wherever it sent you.

[edit on 8-7-2010 by K J Gunderson]

Originally posted by adigregorio
Why do you try, that person has already admitted they do not read/research.

Never admitted any such thing.

Remember, you have to hand everything to them on a silver platter!

No I wanted to see these quotes that proved the OP started this thread to call people fools. I saw nothing but quotes from page 8 so I must have missed something. Unfortunately, none of you provided anything different since.

I simply expect people to back up what they say when research clearly shows they are incorrect or lying. The OP still does not have anything to do with calling people fools.

People are being fools and have revealed themselves as fools. If your point is that the OP started this thread so that a bunch of pages in some other poster (me) could just pop in to call you a fool, then congratulations on being able to convince yourself that is logical.

Please do not start any UFO threads so I do not have to waste my time looking at couches in outer space to have you explain them with your logic.

Like the quotes from the OPer that show where he is a liar, and "picking on" others.

You mean the quotes deep in the thread responding to angry rants in the manner they deserve? Funny how none of your quotes included the context of what he was responding to either. I believe I can make the case that the OP started this thread only to get abused by people who refuse to take the time to read. All I have to do is move one quote up from each of yours.

If you guys do not understand context, how can you begin to give any real thought to the issue of UFOs?

They just REFUSE to read them. Then they TELL us to do more reading...classic hypocrisy!

Fnord fnord, fnord fnord fnord? Fnord!

(EDIT To fix: Fjnord to Fnord)

[edit on 7/8/2010 by adigregorio]

Now I am a group? Must be how I got "misperception" removed from all the real dictionaries then.

Guys, if you got fooled, that is ALL YOUR FAULT. The OP gave you more than enough tools with which to find the truth. Is it the OPs fault when you cannot do something in your personal life, given all the tools to do so? That is your fault.

If you were foolish and then lashed out in anger, you THEN deserve to have your foolishness pointed out.

That, and none of your quotes, change the intent of the OP as you are trying to push.

If you were too smart for this thread, you would not still be complaining about it would you?

reply to post by K J Gunderson


"I am going to ignore the meat of your post..."

(That is me pretending to be you!)

I am not going to hold your hand like a little baby, I already posted everything you are asking for. All you have to do is read, which you have said you are not going to do. I believe you said "Mmmm no, how about you post it again." (Or something to that effect.)

Again, I am not a kindergarten teacher. If you need help reading, I suggest hooked on phonics.

I will say I mildly enjoy watching you waffle back-and-forth trying to find a leg to stand on. (So I guess I can relate to the reason the OP made this thread. He said it himself, and it has been re-posted several times.)

EDIT (To Add: )
If you wish to continue (with me), then you need to explain how this thread is not against the rules. Since the OP knowingly posted false information. (Remember that rule #1 I quoted? The one where you ignored the meat, and cherry picked.)

[edit on 7/8/2010 by adigregorio]

[edit on 7/8/2010 by adigregorio]

Originally posted by adigregorio
reply to post by K J Gunderson

 

"I am going to ignore the meat of your post..."

(That is me pretending to be you!)

You got the accent all wrong.

I am not going to hold your hand like a little baby, I already posted everything you are asking for. All you have to do is read, which you have said you are not going to do. I believe you said "Mmmm no, how about you post it again." (Or something to that effect.)

Right, because I read it already and what you had already held up as an example was not an example of the OP starting this thread to call people fools. So...either you needed to show me DIFFERENT QUOTES or further explain the ones you already picked.

Need me to explain this 5 or 6 more times?

Again, I am not a kindergarten teacher. If you need help reading, I suggest hooked on phonics.

I can read fine and I also understand context. That seems to be the key factor missing with you two.

I will say I mildly enjoy watching you waffle back-and-forth trying to find a leg to stand on. (So I guess I can relate to the reason the OP made this thread. He said it himself, and it has been re-posted several times.)

He never once admitted to what you and ET actually accused him of - starting this thread to call people fools. Even I admit that he did acknowledge foolish behavior...EVENTUALLY. I never denied that. He has not admitted to anything else.

EDIT (To Add: )
If you wish to continue (with me), then you need to explain how this thread is not against the rules. Since the OP knowingly posted false information. (Remember that rule #1 I quoted? The one where you ignored the meat, and cherry picked.)

[edit on 7/8/2010 by adigregorio]

[edit on 7/8/2010 by adigregorio]

That would be this.

Each of these photos were created by me. The stories are all fake.

Or do you need me to hold your hand, treat you like a baby, be your kindergarten teacher, or whatever other childish name calling attacks you resort to in order to get you to READ the OP?

Edit to add: I accuse you of having the OP create this thread so that you get to call me names and insult my intelligence. I can show you examples too.

[edit on 8-7-2010 by K J Gunderson]

[edit on 8-7-2010 by K J Gunderson]

Originally posted by K J Gunderson

Originally posted by Esoteric Teacher


yes, i can read. & although the word you accuse me of using is not a word in your vocabulary, the link and the word according to a free online dictionary does exist, and at your request, i will try again:

misper·ception (-spshn) n.
Source:www.thefreedictionary.com...

If you could read you would see where I already acknowledged your

"source"

Give up.

"Give up" is not two words that go together... can you provide a link or source?

perhaps it would be easier to "give up" on photos of ufos rather than accept the majority of them may be a real phenomenon...

give up? this is your suggestion?

And why should ATSers believe you more than those who have PhDs????

Concerning “misperception”:
It is required learning for USAF Academy
Bankers use the word
Doctors use the word
Publishers publish the word
Who else uses the word “misperception” …

misperception (n)



Synonyms: confusion, misunderstanding, mix-up, muddle, mistake, slip-up

Antonym: clarity


MSN Encarta Thesaurus Link: encarta.msn.com...

UNDERSTANDING CONFLICT
AND WAR: VOL. 3:
CONFLICT IN PERSPECTIVE (mandatory studies at the USAF Academy for Officers)
I have discussed the psychological conditions or causes of conflict of much current interest. There remain others that cannot be treated in the same detail, but nonetheless should be mentioned in conjunction with the conflict helix. These are misperception, dissonance, expectations, and righteousness.
By R.J. Rummel
Source/link: www.hawaii.edu...

USTR: A Lot Of Misperception Over ACTA, But We Won't Clear It Up Or Anything
from the um...-why-not? dept
Via Michael Geist, we're pointed to a short interview with a representative from the US Trade Reps office, where the issue over ACTA concerns is raised, and the response is almost comically ridiculous. Stan McCoy, the assistant US Trade Representative for intellectual property and innovation, responds to complaints by saying that there has been a lot of misrepresentation about ACTA and that it really has a lot about counterfeiting and isn't just about copyright.
You see, this is the point where Stan McCoy or Ron Kirk or anyone in the USTR's office should explain what those misperceptions are, by telling us what's actually being negotiated.
Link/source: www.techdirt.com...

Misperceptions About Interest-Only Mortgage Loans
NOTE: IF YOU WANT THE CRITICAL FACTS ABOUT INTEREST-ONLY WITHOUT ANY FRILLS, GO TO THE INTEREST-ONLY TUTORIAL.

April 8, 2003

I continue to be dumbfounded by the claims about interest-only loans reported to me by mortgage shoppers. Whether the claims originate with loan officers or, as one defensive loan officer suggested to me, they arise in the over-active imagination of shoppers who still believe in the tooth fairy, I can’t say for sure. Probably it is some combination of the two. All I know for sure is that misperceptions abound, and I keep running into more of them.
Source/link: www.mtgprofessor.com...

It is a truism that we see others through a lens distorted by our wishes, needs, and experience. Such misperception surely can be a base of conflict, for our actions follow our perceptions, and if we perceive others as evil and act accordingly, we will generate responses in kind. Some, like White (1966), have carried this truism to the highest level, arguing that wars, especially the conflict in Vietnam, are a consequence of misperception.
By R.J. Rummel
Source/link: www.hawaii.edu...

Misperception and hallucinations
There are no official statistics but it is clear that most ghost cases, when properly investigated, turn out to be caused by misperception.

Source/link: www.assap.org...

Misperception
Require object external to witness
Can be seen by multiple witnesses at once
Originates in brain from sensory input
Source/link: www.assap.org...

Misperception
As optical illusions illustrate, our brains can easily be fooled. Misperceptions are caused by ambiguous, insufficient or conflicting sensory information reaching our brains.
• Ambiguous sensory stimuli may present aspects of different objects, forcing our brains to decide which is really present
• When our brains get insufficient sensory information they may 'edit in' likely objects from memory to make sense of an experience
• Sensory conflicts may arise between different senses which our brains have somehow to resolve

Source/link: www.assap.org...

Misperception triggers
Though misperception has been studied quite extensively in the laboratory, it is not so well documented in the field. Perhaps this is a gap that paranormal researchers could fill! The following examples of visual misperception 'triggers' are anecdotal, so it should not be taken as a definitive or exhaustive list.
Source/link: www.assap.org...

Home » News » Psychotherapy News » Misperception of Weight Ups Teen Depression Risk
Misperception of Weight Ups Teen Depression Risk
By RICK NAUERT PHD Senior News Editor
Reviewed by John M. Grohol, Psy.D. on July 1, 2010

Correct the misperceptions, so the argument goes, and we will have made a gigantic step toward peace and harmony.
By R.J. Rummel
Source/link: www.hawaii.edu...

The misperception argument, unfortunately, neglects the overwhelming importance of realistic conflicts that are based on an actual clash of interests.
By R.J. Rummel
Source/link: www.hawaii.edu...

If, in fact, misperception is operating, we should focus not on misperception itself but on the operation of the whole field in relation to the specific external forces confronting it.
By R.J. Rummel
Source/link: www.hawaii.edu...

This balancing is the cauldron within which misperceptions become corrected. It is the test of their reality. Through mutual adjustment, an equilibrium is struck between mutual perceptions of capabilities, wills, and opposing interests, and cooperative behavior ensues.
By R.J. Rummel
Source/link: www.hawaii.edu...

Jervis: War and misperception
From WikiSummary, the Free Social Science Summary Database
wikisum.com...:_War_and_misperception

some other professions and hundreds of thousands of other people I would have to call liars in order to believe that the word misperception is not a word:
Senator John McCain By RAÚL A. CARRILLO
Published: Friday, May 14, 2010 :
www.thecrimson.com...
alife.org...
www.businessweek.com...
www.stimson.org...
encarta.msn.com...
500,000+ more links:
www.google.com...







[edit on 8-7-2010 by Esoteric Teacher]

Originally posted by ChicUFO
WOW! Is anyone actually reading the OPs post?

I don't think that they are. This is the problem with people, they skim and don't thoroughly check anything for themselves.

This actually makes another point that I made in another thread completely valid. People look for the stuff that they want to agree with or disagree with, and completely discard the rest.

Pathetic. Nonetheless...

Namaste and Love

Everyone remember that thread earlier today about "ET Disclosure" happening this Saturday?

Well, I find it funny, because the kid seen right here, in OP's avatar...




looks identical to this kid, the obvious troll from the "ET Disclosure on Saturday" thread.




Looks like we've got ourselves a striking resemblance guys, watch out, OP's trolling, and he's got the ability of ignorance, equipped with the elaborate skill of hoaxing.

The one thing he did fail to mention, is that he never offered unedited photos, photos in which the EXIF data is straight from the Camera. (so he essentially proved nothing but his ability to use photoshop.)

None the less, definite troll.

[edit on 8-7-2010 by Revolution-2012]

[edit on 8-7-2010 by Revolution-2012]

Originally posted by K J Gunderson

EDIT (To Add: )
If you wish to continue (with me), then you need to explain how this thread is not against the rules. Since the OP knowingly posted false information. (Remember that rule #1 I quoted? The one where you ignored the meat, and cherry picked.)

That would be this.

Each of these photos were created by me. The stories are all fake.

Or do you need me to hold your hand, treat you like a baby, be your kindergarten teacher, or whatever other childish name calling attacks you resort to in order to get you to READ the OP?

No you need to LEARN HOW TO READ:

1). Posting:You will not post any material that is knowingly false, misleading, or inaccurate. You will not solicit personal information from any member. You will not use information gathered form this website to harass, abuse or harm other people.

THE OP POSTED FALSE INFORMATION. There is no dancing around that, which you know. Again, explain how posting false information is NOT against the rules.

Just because he said it was false does not change the fact that HE POSTED FALSE INFORMATION.

EDIT (To nip: )
And please note the OR in that rule quote. That means NO False information, NO misleading information, AND NO inaccurate.

IE He posted knowingly false information. It doesn't have to be "misleading" or "inaccurate" too.

[edit on 7/8/2010 by adigregorio]

reply to post by Revolution-2012


LOL

I sure hope this is NOT the OP. Though they look alot alike!

Either way, this video does nothing to discredit the OP. Or the "real reason" for this thread. Unless he thinks the gullible people are the ones that are deserving of his "hate".

Which I doubt, it has been my experience that the gullible folks believe in higher powers, not the other way around.

This thread was to pick on the gullible, the OP being gullible himself has been "picked on" by me. Though my intent was not to recieve "kicks", mine was to teach.

Again I say to the OP. You are not original, you are not unique. This "thread idea" has been done countless times, and by posters that are far superior to anyone in this thread.

You trolled, you made a thread for trolling. I came in to discuss the "real reason" for the thread. Which is the awesome, because it happens to be the topic of the thread. According to the OP's own posts, he created the thread to get "kicks" out of people "falling for it".

(All that typing is to save my ass, considering we have a thread full of liars. And folks who just can't seem to read.)

reply to post by Revolution-2012


Firstly, I invite any mod to check my IP.

I don't have an accent, nor a lisp.

Me:
[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/3448479dc7bd.jpg[/atsimg]

Not quite...


Wait, why am I even proving you wrong. I don't even need to. Your claim is ridiculous to say the least!