Merged Skeptics vs. Knowers/Believers

Awesome...

Take your time, I'm patient.


It's too bad the Knowers/Believers aren't willing to invest a tiny bit of effort into understanding these phenomena / crappy videos / exaggerated misunderstandings / etc. Skeptics do it all the time. We've seen skeptics shred a piece of lousy video in literally hours, but it seems we never see a Knower/Believer do a reasoned analysis of anything they think supports their faith. But maybe that's one of the defining differences between them and skeptics, just sheer unadulterated laziness.
 
OK, here's some more stills from the video that is one of KotA's favourites.

There was no edit and repositioning of camera.

Firstly, I'll present the shot taken towards the end of the footage were the horizon is clearly shown:

End-Shot1.jpg


You can see some distinctive features (the trees and undulations in the distant hills).

Now here is the same picture, but this time I've overlaid a frame from earlier in the video where a similar amount of horizon detail is present.

End-Shot2.jpg


The overlay has been reduced because in the frame is was taken from, the camera was zoomed in. You will notice an exact match (as exact as we can be working with YouTube resolutions). So looking at this comparison, it looks like the camera was not moved at any time during the filming of this footage. If the camera had moved, we wouldn't not expect to see this match as the trees in the middle distance would have altered their relationship to the distant horizon.

But to double check, let's have a look at the part where the alleged edit took place.

First here is one of the last frames from when the trees start to lgo off the screen (leaving a second or so of blank sky):
Out-Of-View.jpg


At this point, the trees in the bottom right are leaving that corner of the field of view (the camera is being pointed back up into the sky and slightly to the left). The trees actually go off the screen at 0:31:13

I have kept both these pics at the same size they were screen grabbed at because there is no sign of zoom being used in the frames directly preceding or following these screen grabs.

In-To-View.jpg


The trees come back onto the screen again at 0:33:03 and the first opportunity for a comparison is seen above. So there has been a mostly featureless field of view for less than 2 seconds (the time code on video is hours:seconds:frames and the PAL standard is 24fps).
So we see the trees come back into view exactly where we would expect to see them if there was no change of camera position and the fact they are at the same size (they would be bigger on the overlay if the camera had moved forward) would strongly indicate no edit and change of camera position.
Eventually the camera zooms out to reveal the shot of the horizon mentioned previously.

The Tree Disappears

On the previous page I presented some stills taken from the footage that showed a tree which was in shot on the zoomed in footage and yet had gone when the camera zoomed out. I promised to montage a series of screen grabs together to show the extent of the field of view throughout the footage. Here it is:
Full-Montage1.jpg


The various screen grabs are once again different sizes to compensate for the camera zooming in at certain points throughout the footage.

Now if we add the disappearing tree to the montage:
Full-Montage2.jpg


We can see the tree should clearly still be in shot because the camera has gone way past where the foreground tree should be, unless the camera has moved significantly, which as I have just shown, is not likely to be the case.

Interestingly, whilst researching this footage, I came across version credited to the sighting being in Santa Fe New Mexico. I also found the same footage being credited to the sighting being in Santa Monica.
A little bit of research regarding UFO sightings in both those places reveals:
A video on YouTube from Santa Fe showing an ambiguous light in the sky which at one point looks to fire a white beam downwards (this looks for all the world to me like a video artifact as some mobile phones tend to do the same thing when filming lights again blackness)
and
A several videos on YouTube from Santa Monica relating to reports of bright white UFO's falling downward from the sky. Again these eye witness reports are backed up by unimpressive video footage. The eye witnesses are at a loss to explain the falling white things. Later it was discovered that the Red Bull Sky Diving Team were doing a display and the objects were nothing more than parachutists with smoke canisters.

The dates of these two separate sightings match up roughly to the posting dates where this video has been credited to the two different places and so it then starts to look like this uncredited video has been used to somehow support the documented (if later identified) UFO sightings.

If something smells fishy... call Squid Fishing Monthly. :)
 
You have talent, sir.

Thank you for taking the time to do this. If I have a video that requires debunking, you will be my first thought.

GREAT work!


If only the Knowers/Believers had the ambition and desire to understand their beliefs. As I mentioned above, it appears laziness is a pretty good strategy to avoid facing the belief-damaging truth.
 
I thought I would bring this quote over from KotA's "Woos" vs. "Ticks" thread in FM since it more rightly belongs here where it can be discussed.
I came here initially, SEEKING an explanation for a U.F.O. sighting I had. I wanted my finding to be debunked by those who've had the most experience doing so. I didn't want a pack of believers to blow sunshine up my pah-toot.
As I replied in FM, you quite clearly came here seeking validation for your beliefs.
 
I thought I would bring this quote over from KotA's "Woos" vs. "Ticks" thread in FM since it more rightly belongs here where it can be discussed.

As I replied in FM, you quite clearly came here seeking validation for your beliefs.

What does this thread have anything to do with my I 'initially' came here...?
 
What does this thread have anything to do with my I 'initially' came here...?

You may copy into any other thread you think appropriate.

Your posts actually show that you came here to get validation for your beliefs in aliens. Or "aliens", if you prefer. You saw something in the sky that you couldn't explain and jumped to the conclusion that it was aliens. Your posts here indicate that no matter what possible explanation is suggested, you will find some reason to say "Nope, wasn't that. Had to be aliens!"

I hesitate to bring it up again but do you remember your memory troubles?
 
You may copy into any other thread you think appropriate.

Your posts actually show that you came here to get validation for your beliefs in aliens. Or "aliens", if you prefer. You saw something in the sky that you couldn't explain and jumped to the conclusion that it was aliens. Your posts here indicate that no matter what possible explanation is suggested, you will find some reason to say "Nope, wasn't that. Had to be aliens!"

I hesitate to bring it up again but do you remember your memory troubles?

One, I don't believe in aliens.

Two, asking for someone to help me positively identify something I saw is NOT seeking validation for a preconceived notion.

To this day, I don't know exactly what I saw that evening. The only conclusion I have reached is a 'non-human, intelligently driven' something.

What I specifically sought and still do seek is an explanation for what I saw.
 
I know this is almost heresy, but Carl Sagan saying, "Not a shred of evidence." doesn't make the statement true. I'll concede that the evidence in quest is NOT 'proof', and that the evidence is weak, inconsistent, and without a lot of scientific merit. In fact, 'I' would say Sagan is EXACTLY wrong. All that we have are shreds of evidence.

Hey, guess what: if Carl Sagan saying "Not a shred of evidence" doesn't make the statement true, then you saying "Carl Sagan is EXACTLY wrong" doesn't make the statement true either.

And no, we don't have any shreds of evidence for alien life. Blurry pictures and anecdotes are not evidence of anything.
 
Last edited:
One, I don't believe in aliens.

Two, asking for someone to help me positively identify something I saw is NOT seeking validation for a preconceived notion.

To this day, I don't know exactly what I saw that evening. The only conclusion I have reached is a 'non-human, intelligently driven' something.

What I specifically sought and still do seek is an explanation for what I saw.

The only conclusion you reached is what's defined as Aliens: non-human, intelligently driven something. So yes, you are convinced that the only thing you could have seen was of Extraterrestrial origin and yes, you are seeking confirmation for the sighting of aliens.
 
One of these...
One, I don't believe in aliens.

Two, asking for someone to help me positively identify something I saw is NOT seeking validation for a preconceived notion.

To this day, I don't know exactly what I saw that evening. The only conclusion I have reached is a 'non-human, intelligently driven' something.

What I specifically sought and still do seek is an explanation for what I saw.

...is not like the other.
 
KotA, what is a 'non-human intelligence'?

In which direction was half the world supposed to have a moment directing their gaze towards?
 
"Skywards"?
That's all? You must be more specific.

People in New York, London, Beijing and Tokyo looking skywards at the same time will not be looking towards the same direction.

Where skywards exactly are these people supposed to look at?
 

Back
Top Bottom