• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Alien Visitation Contact Proof

Mojo said:
How do you know this, if you don’t know where the sound came from?
Click to expand...

Because I've told people several times how the neighbour next door said it was silent af outside ... she was awake I was asleep
 
8enotto said:
Ok cdelphi, let's say it was alien contact and every idea you offer is correct.

These aliens came, did a wireless recharge of the iSaucer and scanned your back yard. Basically giving you five months of sleepless nights and a lot of stress.

Did they leave any messages you can detect?
Do you feel a need to pass some cryptic message from them or fill a notebook with an long string of numbers, like that British bloke did?
Did anything useful at all come of this for you?
Click to expand...

Did these aliens burn your face, like sunburn?
Did you get an urge to play with your mashed potatoes at dinner time?
Did you feel compelled to build a model of a mountain in your lounge room?
Did you feel a overwhelming compulsion to travel to northeast Wyoming?
 
bruto said:
Cjdelphi, on a more abstract level than whether or not what you saw is what you think you saw, or whether aliens exist or not, I think you are making a serious mistake in evaluating how the skeptics on this board are behaving, and in how you react to it.

Whatever other evidence you've seen, research you've done, books you've read, reasoning you've labored over, experience you've had, all of it is invisible to us and irrelevant to the evidence you have posted. That's all we can go on. Your back story is yours alone.

We can evaluate only the evidence you presented, and base it on guesses about the credibility of your stories. Whether you're right or wrong, your evidence is lousy, and no true skeptic would take it as evidence of anything.
Click to expand...

The only evidence a dumb ass will accept as being real is if an alien lands in their back yard...

Even then, it might not be proof, why would you join a skeptic forum simply to agree with every other skeptic? Group orgy?
 
smartcooky said:
Did these aliens burn your face, like sunburn?
Did you get an urge to play with your mashed potatoes at dinner time?
Did you feel compelled to build a model of a mountain in your lounge room?
Did you feel a overwhelming compulsion to travel to northeast Wyoming?
Click to expand...

What do you think I mean when I say "I was asleep and have no memory of it"

My story isn't going to change...
 
cjdelphi said:
The raw file means it came from the memory card not recorded from a stream off the chinese web server genius
Click to expand...


"Raw [video] file" means nothing of the sort. You have been abusing a common term because you don't understand it. Nor to you understand the impact the various encoding methods may have on the video, including a variety of anomalies not unlike what you have been attributing to aliens.

Why should we take you at all seriously when you get so much wrong?

(By the way, the word is "impedance", and Ohm's Law refers to something else.)
 
cjdelphi said:
He calls this "clear footage" lmao, I can't make out if that is a bird or flying lamp post, it's 2022 not 1992...

Easy to ridicule blury footage, if it was clear I might be able to tell it's a bird, I think it's a brown out and the power coming back on that makes you see a bird...

I don't see a bird, just a blurry photo
Click to expand...



AHA! Your problem is within the abilities of man to solve, or at least identify. And that man is an opthamologist. Hopefully he can clear this whole matter up for you. Or do you just prefer to lie in the face of evidence contradictory to your pleading?
 
cjdelphi said:
Because I've told people several times how the neighbour next door said it was silent af outside ... she was awake I was asleep
Click to expand...

So in your sleep, you identified the location of a sound source that nobody else heard. THAT's convincing. :rolleyes:
 
cjdelphi said:
If the real reason for trying to mock me is because you truly believe we are alone in the universe out of billions and billions of planets, that's loony talk, ups are real and they fly off at speeds we can never match
Click to expand...
On the contrary, I believe that the universe is probably teeming with life. Life appeared on this planet pretty much as soon as conditions permitted it, and very quickly expanded to fill every conceivable ecological niche and quite a few inconceivable ones, and I don't see any reason why that couldn't happen on another planet.

What I dispute is that there are technological alien civilisations actually visiting us. First, there is absolutely no evidence of it, blurry photos and vague nonspecific lights notwithstanding. Second, the speed of light isn't just a good idea, it's a fundamental property of the universe and can't be bypassed - if it can, then by necessity everything we know about light and how it works is wrong. And what we know about light and how it works agrees very strongly with what we can measure and quantify. We know we're not wrong.

The nearest star, Proxima Centauri, is approximately four light years away. That means that even light would take four years to get from there to here. Anything that has mass must travel slower than light. Anything that has enough mass to carry a power source, an ion drive, and living crew must take hundreds or thousands of years to traverse that distance.

No. Though I do not know what caused your strange light and probably never will, I am very confident that it was not a technological alien spacecraft visiting us from another planet.

You say you value logic. Can you explain how it is logical to jump from "unknown" to "known to be aliens"?
 
cjdelphi said:
Wow, 70 meters away! Shouldn't you be able to show us a clear photo of its feet? If I zoom in will it look blury? How will I ever know it's a birds foot if blury.???
Click to expand...
You can't see its feet because it's facing the wrong way, so only a little bit of a foot can be seen anyway, but what's the point of that? It's a cormorant for sure, but it's possible to zoom in only a certain distance because it's a small JPG image taken with a small sensor. It's certainly not that hard to get a sharper image with a better camera.

If the best you can do is not good enough, it isn't made better by noting the inadequacy of your equipment.

The space alien in my back yard says Hi (200 percent crop)

MJC_7322.JPG
 
jsfisher said:
"Raw [video] file" means nothing of the sort. You have been abusing a common term because you don't understand it. Nor to you understand the impact the various encoding methods may have on the video, including a variety of anomalies not unlike what you have been attributing to aliens.

Why should we take you at all seriously when you get so much wrong?

(By the way, the word is "impedance", and Ohm's Law refers to something else.)
Click to expand...

I think the OP is showing reluctance to accept your word... :D
 
smartcooky said:
Did these aliens burn your face, like sunburn?
Did you get an urge to play with your mashed potatoes at dinner time?
Did you feel compelled to build a model of a mountain in your lounge room?
Did you feel a overwhelming compulsion to travel to northeast Wyoming?
Click to expand...
Lol. I had thought of that but just wasn't going there.
Some of the UFO event claims made popular by woo tv come with folks that were compelled to do some rather strange things afterwards. A few went off the deep end entirely.

One thing they all share is verified facts don't back up the claims. That is what convinced me to only look for something solid. Thirty year of waiting for these fools on tv to finally get to a irrefutable fact and all the ever say is " we need to investigate this" again.
Mundane events to utter fantasy cover it well however.
 
Last edited:
MBDK said:
AHA! Your problem is within the abilities of man to solve, or at least identify. And that man is an opthamologist. Hopefully he can clear this whole matter up for you. Or do you just prefer to lie in the face of evidence contradictory to your pleading?
Click to expand...

Can't you see i was being an ass I mean skeptic
 
jsfisher said:
"Raw [video] file" means nothing of the sort. You have been abusing a common term because you don't understand it. Nor to you understand the impact the various encoding methods may have on the video, including a variety of anomalies not unlike what you have been attributing to aliens.

Why should we take you at all seriously when you get so much wrong?

(By the way, the word is "impedance", and Ohm's Law refers to something else.)
Click to expand...


You have reduced this completely unknown phenomena down to it being if it's a "raw video" or not well done, to me raw means untouched not un compressed
 
jsfisher said:
"Raw [video] file" means nothing of the sort. You have been abusing a common term because you don't understand it. Nor to you understand the impact the various encoding methods may have on the video, including a variety of anomalies not unlike what you have been attributing to aliens.

Why should we take you at all seriously when you get so much wrong?

(By the way, the word is "impedance", and Ohm's Law refers to something else.)
Click to expand...

arthwollipot said:
I saw a light. That's all. I can't draw any conclusions from that.
Click to expand...

You re definitely smarter than most here, I suggest you delve into your mind and really think about if what you saw was a magic flying lamp, that creates aliens sounds and if that seems more plausible to you

Than the truth
 
Last edited:
cjdelphi said:
You re definitely smarter than most here, I suggest you delve into your mind and really think about if what you saw was a magic flying lamp, that creates aliens sounds...

Or the truth
Click to expand...
I am not in the habit of drawing conclusions from insufficient evidence.

I saw a light. That's all. A light is not sufficient evidence to draw the conclusion that an alien flew a spacecraft for hundreds if not thousands of years in order to shine it in your front yard.

One thing that I have learned in over fifteen years of posting here, by the way, is that I am not as smart as a lot of the people here. Not by a long shot.
 
cjdelphi said:
You have reduced this completely unknown phenomena down to it being if it's a "raw video" or not well done, to me raw means untouched not un compressed
Click to expand...

Well, then, you are not using the word in its more usually accepted sense. In photographic use, "raw" does mean uncompressed, or at least not compressed by lossy JPG algorithms, because of course if it's compressed it's touched, whether by the camera or yourself. And when it is, it acquires artifacts that degrade its accuracy, both by eliminating some information and by interpolating some, whether you see the effect or not.

It does not really matter whether some people here are describing the phenomena shown right or wrong. What's seen is, indeed, entirely unknown, and so it will remain, because the video is not good enough to serve as real evidence of anything.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom