Photo of Alien in Aviation Week magazine!

reply to post by getreadyalready

Any other evaluation process, IMHO, is ludicrous. Why jump to the least logical solution and then work backwards to a mildly plausible one.

Why is it that you find and alien being 'the least logical solution' ? Is it really that ludicrous to you that alien life exists?

If I was confronted by an alien being, and it walked, talked and breathed in front of me, I would see it for what it is. And then, I would either freeze our of fear, or run and get the hell away from there if I could. If I felt like that's what I need to do.

You see, I do not argue with myself about the fact that they might exist. To me, it is more than 'quite possible' that these beings are out there- to me, it's logical that they do exist.

Look, I don't know what you believe- but I guess it varies from person to person what is logical and what is ludicrous. And you and I are opposite ends of the spectrum on this one. And that's just fine...

Originally posted by lysdexia
Why are here so many hicks and retards who can't spell the fourth-grade words "its" and "you're"?

How come the admins don't care about the God-awful spelling in these boards? (They must be as bad and don't wit a thing.) And Bill, anyone who says "whether or not" is a dolt. Why would anyone want to "fit in nesciently"?

Wow you really don't have much of a life do you.I bet your real fun to be around.
Here you are.
its, the possessive adjective and possessive pronoun form of the personal pronoun it
it's, a contraction of it is or it has

[edit on 7-7-2010 by buddhistpunk]

[edit on 7-7-2010 by buddhistpunk]

Originally posted by getreadyalready
reply to post by Tripple_Helix

 

Of course I would....wouldn't you?

If an alien approached you in the driveway, would your first response be, oh sh*t an alien, or would it be, what the h*ll is that, and why is it in my driveway?

I have almost 37 years of life experience, and aliens have not been a significant part of it, so when I am confronted with a situation I look at the most common explanations first, then I branch out, then I branch out some more, I traverse pranks, hoaxes, then science, then religion, then maybe, just maybe, I arrive at aliens as the explanation. I certainly do not start there.

Any other evaluation process, IMHO, is ludicrous. Why jump to the least logical solution and then work backwards to a mildly plausible one.

Kind of like Occams Hammer instead of Occams Razor isn't it?

I think the first thing you would do is shoot it Dick.

reply to post by getreadyalready


Unless we are privvy to all the details, assuming it is an image of a genuine ET, there may be lots of reasons why the image lighting isn't as we'd like it to be.

Maybe, these things are subterranean dwellers...that would explain their large eyes, developed for low light levels...a very brightly lit room could actually hurt the ET.

It would be like one of us sitting with a halogen spot light shining full glare into our eyes...not very comfortable.

Or there could be any number of other reasons, peculiar to the ET and it's environmental needs.

Remember, IF this is genuine, we cannot apply human conditions to the image or the ET.

Originally posted by Just Wondering
reply to post by getreadyalready

 

The best the movie industry could do in 1984 was E.T. which was actually released in 1982 with a budget of $10,500,000. Are you saying the model maker for the print ad made a more realistic looking alien and pwned Steven Spielberg? Wouldn't this model maker have a huge future in the movie industry and would have become a well known figure? Does anyone even know the name of this guy?

E.T. was a puppet with full range of motion, room for a person inside, a head full of animatronics, and meant to be lit and filmed from all different angles. Hardly the same thing as half a backlit model.

I would really really love to believe but are people really getting upset because they believe this is a real picture? Really? Let me see if I understand what people are suggesting happened here.

"Ok, we got us that alien and this camera. This is groundbreaking, earthshattering, mankind altering stuff here. What can we do? Oh, oh I got it. Mr. Alien can we take just one picture of you? How can we let something like this go undocumented?

Ok, let me get really close because no one wants to see an entire alien naked so we gotta get tight on ya.

Now can someone get that fog machine running in the back? We want to make sure this photo has no context whatsoever.

Ok, who is the wiseguy that made sure the lights radiated throughout the room, mostly from above? That gives us way too much detail. Kill the lights and someone put a lamp low and behind the alien. This may take a minute as we do not have any rooms that have that kind of lighting built in. Not many rooms require horizontally directed light.

OK, we got fog, we are in tight, lights out, lamp behind him...ok ready, Mr. Alien?

All right now raise your right hand like you are saying "I come in peace." No, your other right hand. No your... ok never-mind we need to hurry up and take this. I wasted so much time on lighting and fog.

OH OH!!!!! Wait! I almost took the picture with the flash on! Duh! Let me disable the flash first. That's better. Ok, say CHEESE!

Cool, I think we got it. Thanks for your time. My brother works for some oil company and I bet he would get a kick out of this picture. Have a nice flight."

This thread is fun.

Originally posted by Tripple_Helix
reply to post by getreadyalready

 

Any other evaluation process, IMHO, is ludicrous. Why jump to the least logical solution and then work backwards to a mildly plausible one.

Why is it that you find and alien being 'the least logical solution' ? Is it really that ludicrous to you that alien life exists?

Even though your reply was aimed at 'getreadyalready', I'd like to respond...

...I don't think that other intelligent life in the universe is implausible -- in fact I think it's likely.

HOWEVER, it is much more plausible that this image is exactly what it is supposed to be -- part of a magazine advertisement for AMOCO products. Seeing that it is just part of a magazine ad, there is absolutely no reason to believe that the image is real.

Why would you believe the image in this particular advertisement when you wouldn't always think pictures in other advertisements are real, such as these:

www.midwestrocklobster.com...
www.thecoolhunter.net...
www.thecoolhunter.net...

Do you find it more plausible that the images in these ads are real or that they are fake?



[edit on 7/7/2010 by Soylent Green Is People]

reply to post by buddhistpunk

I think the first thing you would do is shoot it Dick.

Whoops! I must be very grouchy this morning.

[edit on 7-7-2010 by getreadyalready]

Originally posted by getreadyalready

SNIP

Pssssssssst.

Come here. Just between you and me -

Your avatar is Dick Tracy and he is shooting a gun. I thought that might be relevant.

Edited out your quote to be fair to ya.

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

Originally posted by K J Gunderson

Originally posted by getreadyalready

No, I hardly ever shoot anything.

Grouchy stuff snipped!

Pssssssssst.

Come here. Just between you and me -

Your avatar is Dick Tracy and he is shooting a gun. I thought that might be relevant.

Whoops, red-faced edit coming very quickly before anybody else notices that! Thanks!

[edit on 7-7-2010 by getreadyalready]

Originally posted by getreadyalready
Whoops, red-faced edit coming very quickly before anybody else notices that!

Thanks!

too late
thanks for the laugh guys.

[edit on 7-7-2010 by Just Wondering]

reply to post by Just Wondering


Shhhh. It's our secret now!

It was kinda funny though, right?

reply to post by Soylent Green Is People

HOWEVER, it is much more plausible that this image is exactly what it is supposed to be -- part of a magazine advertisement for AMOCO products. Seeing that it is just part of a magazine ad, there is absolutely no reason to believe that the image is real.

I have searched for that advertisement online for over an hour now, & it's no where to be found. If you or someone else can post it here, I would appreciate it.

Do you find it more plausible that the images in these ads are real or that they are fake?

You are comparing a Mc Donald's, Coca Cola and Volumising shampoo advert with the picture in question? As others would say, apples and oranges...

Originally posted by Tripple_Helix
I have searched for that advertisement online for over an hour now, & it's no where to be found. If you or someone else can post it here, I would appreciate it.

I have searched for any evidence that is a photograph of a real alien in a smoky backlit room for over an hour now.

Hmmm....

Now I guess we have to go with what is most likely for the time being, right? What do you think is more likely?

reply to post by Tripple_Helix


You didn't look very hard did you?

First page.

Third post (my post).

Click the links.

reply to post by K J Gunderson

I have searched for any evidence that is a photograph of a real alien in a smoky backlit room for over an hour now.

No need to be sarcastic, I politely asked for someone to point out the advert because I couldn't find it. Is that really so bad? I think sometimes, you must take things up the way you would mean it, and not the way the person writing would mean it.

reply to post by Chadwickus


Actually, I did try and find it, to the best of my ability. I'm sorry if you think otherwise.
Obviously, I missed your post... apologies for that.

But in any case, Thank you.

[edit on 8-7-2010 by Tripple_Helix]

reply to post by Tripple_Helix


You're welcome!

Its a genuine hoax. Would an alien want to show itself on Earth when they would try to conceal themselves?

So Aliens are like humans, but really ugly humans? What a letdown :p

So Ufo sightings are either earthbound military drones, or, if you are really lucky, something like this.

www.soundguideweb.com...

Case closed?

Unfortunately, after initially being very excited by this image, it took about 2 mins to prove it's fake. With the right Photoshop adjustments to the HR picture increased to 1200dpi it's pretty easy to see that the model is in fact MISSING it's left eye. Presumably a lot of work went into that part of the model, and it's the reason for the specific heavy shadowing in the final image.

Looks great though!