The "Taliban UFO" -Are we "hurting belief" in the the UFO phenomenon?

originally posted by: tanka418
Why don't you address the real issue here...and it ain't whether I can "tell" a fake image or not...that is actually rather immaterial.

The real issue here is the crying "CGI" when virtually any image that isn't "liked" appears. That is the only demonstration one needs around here. Y'all are wrong in doing so; it only serves to demonstrate your prejudice, ignorance, and worse yet, your unwillingness to learn.

Doesn't it make a pretty extreme difference though, when a video that isn't "liked" is disliked because it is clearly CGI for reasons A, B, and C? When you toss out their explanation as immaterial its easy to lump them into a disbeliever camp, but lumping the people that disagree into a conveniently labelled box is what you're trying to avoid, no? To say that someone claiming CGI is automatically being prejudiced, ignorant and unwilling to learn is very, well, prejudiced, ignorant and unwilling to learn.

originally posted by: darknoir2
There is no way of knowing whether a video I have yet to see exists. That falls within the realm of faith, and based on what I've seen so far, I have no such belief. Maybe/maybe not is the best I can do.

I wasn't implying anything. You have but to read a few threads on this site to see the "TPTB would never tell us" and "Never A Straight Answer" and "paid disinfo agent" type sentiments. If no "official" source can be believed, how is "official disclosure" to come about? Through fringe and conspiracy sites? We have that already. And there have already been "official disclosures" which have been immediately dismissed by CT'ers as "disinfo". If Obama were to officially disclose that the government has no evidence whatsoever of Extraterrestrial contact, would that be sufficient for those who believe otherwise, or would it be dismissed?

How do you go from saying "I haven't seen every UFO video" to not knowing whether these videos exist or not? Anyway, you indicate there's a possibility so that's a good enough answer.

Those examples are counter intuitive. This was your original question:

originally posted by: draknoir2
Will anyone seeking "official disclosure" accept any such disclosure from an official source which does not confirm their personal beliefs regarding ET contact?

If you believe none of these sources are going to be straight up front about the phenomena then that's not official disclosure, it's either denial or non acknowledgement. If Obama or anyone of that level status were to deny it, then it would contradict a plethora of investigation and research done since the 1940s'. That's the reason it hasn't been outright publicly addressed in that manner. I personally find that info very credible despite concrete proof but that's because I understand the reasons for the covert mechanism said to be orchestrated behind it. So for me, I would swiftly dismiss it, as I'm sure a lot of the hardcore believers would.

originally posted by: TrueMessiah


How do you go from saying "I haven't seen every UFO video" to not knowing whether these videos exist or not? Anyway, you indicate there's a possibility so that's a good enough answer.

That's not a "to/from" transition. I haven't seen every UFO video therefore I cannot say whether a UFO video of which I have no knowledge exists. Pretty cut and dried.

originally posted by: TrueMessiah
If you believe none of these sources are going to be straight up front about the phenomena then that's not official disclosure, it's either denial or non acknowledgement. If Obama or anyone of that level status were to deny it, then it would contradict a plethora of investigation and research done since the 1940s'. That's the reason it hasn't been outright publicly addressed in that manner. I personally find that info very credible despite concrete proof but that's because I understand the reasons for the covert mechanism said to be orchestrated behind it. So for me, I would swiftly dismiss it, as I'm sure a lot of the hardcore believers would.

So it's only official if you believe it and it does not contradict what you've concluded from an inconclusive body of evidence since the '40s, otherwise you would swiftly dismiss it? That's pretty much what I expected. At least I can acknowledge the possibility.

I am more than certain that those you would label "deniers" and "non-ackmowledgers" would more readily accept an official disclosure of a secret history of ET contact than would the CT and UFO believer communities accept official disclosure to the contrary.

originally posted by: conundrummer

originally posted by: tanka418
Why don't you address the real issue here...and it ain't whether I can "tell" a fake image or not...that is actually rather immaterial.

The real issue here is the crying "CGI" when virtually any image that isn't "liked" appears. That is the only demonstration one needs around here. Y'all are wrong in doing so; it only serves to demonstrate your prejudice, ignorance, and worse yet, your unwillingness to learn.

Doesn't it make a pretty extreme difference though, when a video that isn't "liked" is disliked because it is clearly CGI for reasons A, B, and C? When you toss out their explanation as immaterial its easy to lump them into a disbeliever camp, but lumping the people that disagree into a conveniently labelled box is what you're trying to avoid, no? To say that someone claiming CGI is automatically being prejudiced, ignorant and unwilling to learn is very, well, prejudiced, ignorant and unwilling to learn.

Except; I have never seen reason "A", "B", or "C". They are somehow skipped!!!

I didn't say that anyone claiming "CGI" was automatically anything. I stated that the blind assertion was prejudiced, ignorant, and unwilling to learn.

Its kid of like this; I agree that the image in question is "CGI", but; my reasons are vastly different than yours; I question your reasons; in as much as they have not been stated...I have no choice.

The typical methods employed here seem to be; assertion of evidence (our image in question), declaration of unworthiness (it's CGI!), case dismissed. AND, rarely is there any evidence supporting any decision at all in the matter.

It is like y'all "make-up-your-mind" and that's the end. Truth, reality be damned!

originally posted by: draknoir2

That's not a "to/from" transition. I haven't seen every UFO video therefore I cannot say whether a UFO video of which I have no knowledge exists. Pretty cut and dried.

LOL, If you admit to having not seen every video available, then you can't say that "I have no knowledge that they exist". Not that it matters because you've already answered my question so this redundant convo can now be dropped.

originally posted by: darknoir2
So it's only official if you believe it and it does not contradict what you've concluded from an inconclusive body of evidence since the '40s, otherwise you would swiftly dismiss it? That's pretty much what I expected. At least I can acknowledge the possibility.

I am more than certain that those you would label "deniers" and "non-ackmowledgers" would more readily accept an official disclosure of a secret history of ET contact than would the CT and UFO believer communities accept official disclosure to the contrary.

Look, this is real simple. You basically asked me if I would accept the refutation, or premise that they don't exist am I right? I told you no based on what I typed in my last post.

If official disclosure in favor of the ET presence came to light, then there would be no reason to not accept it because it would be in accordance with the tons of anecdotal evidence accumulated over all of those years prior. On the other hand, it would be harder for the believer committee to accept disclosure to the contrary due to that very same anecdotal evidence/research being "up in the air and up for debate" so to speak. Make sense?

Awwwww. Doesn't look like anyone took me up on my post here.

That's okay, here are the answers:

Starting from top to bottom:

Pic 1: Real

Pic 2: Real

Pic 3: CGI

Pic 4: CGI

Pic 5: Both.....it's a mixture of real and CGI

Pic 6: Real

originally posted by: eriktheawful
Awwwww. Doesn't look like anyone took me up on my post here.

That's okay, here are the answers:

Starting from top to bottom:

Pic 1: Real

Pic 2: Real

Pic 3: CGI

Pic 4: CGI

Pic 5: Both.....it's a mixture of real and CGI

Pic 6: Real

I couldn't tell, so they are all real.

originally posted by: tanka418I didn't say that anyone claiming "CGI" was automatically anything. I stated that the blind assertion was prejudiced, ignorant, and unwilling to learn.

Its kid of like this; I agree that the image in question is "CGI", but; my reasons are vastly different than yours; I question your reasons; in as much as they have not been stated...I have no choice.

The typical methods employed here seem to be; assertion of evidence (our image in question), declaration of unworthiness (it's CGI!), case dismissed. AND, rarely is there any evidence supporting any decision at all in the matter.

It is like y'all "make-up-your-mind" and that's the end. Truth, reality be damned!

I see things differently: there are posters who regularly say "fake" without explaining, and there are those who regularly say "fake" and provide good evidence of why. Supporting evidence is not all that uncommon even if it appears in a sea of unsubstantiated fakes.