• 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.

UFOs: The Research, the Evidence

Status
Not open for further replies.
AdMan said:
Exactly.

That close-up rendition is based on nothing more than his pure imagination.

He knows that this light was an "alien craft"?

The claims are pretty laughable, really.
Click to expand...

I agree, it could have been a large blue chinese lantern.
ufology was it a stormy night?
 
Last edited:
Last edited:
ufology said:
GeeMack and his misrepresentations by omission ...
Click to expand...

What was omitted?

A quote of you saying you wont talk about your own claim. Oops. A quote of you later talking about your own claim.

Neither misrepresenting the series of events, nor omitting events.
 
Stop with the puns now, I'm laughing so hard they're going to have to carry me out on a guernsey.
 
Oh and here is a hint to stop the thread diverting;

If you want to argue a new definition of UFO start a new thrad.
If you want to talk about hoaxes start a new thread.
If you want to talk about anything that is not evidence or research, start a new thread.
 
Ufology, you are leaving without discussing one of your best stories? Aren't we going to go over the amazing story of the the Caddy full of MiB?
 
cyclonic said:
I agree, it could have been a large blue chinese lantern.
ufology was it a stormy night?
Click to expand...


No not stormy, and the object moved way too fast and was way too bright. Otherwise the floating lantern explanation wouldn't be too bad.

BTW. The illustration is not "pure imagination". It is an illustration of what the object I saw from much farther away would probably seem like much closer up. The terrain, color, size and shape are all about right.
 
Akhenaten said:
Same scene from 3 kilometres away:


UFO6.jpg
Click to expand...


Actually the one below is a closer illustration. Not exactly the same but it gets the idea across. When we first saw the object it came over the mountain sort of like the image below, but came down the side in big arcs, almost as if it were bouncing. Later it came up and did the maneuvers described in earlier posts.

Orb-01a.png
 
Last edited:
ufology said:
Actually the one below is a closer illustration. Not exactly the same but it gets the idea across.
Click to expand...


Yeah, it gets the idea across that all you're doing, and all you've ever been doing, is using the feedback you get here to refine your campfire story into something that's at least marginally believable entertaining.

What you seem to be neglecting is the permanent record that will remain here of the initial drafts of this sad and silly tale.

Interesting to note the sudden appearance of a reflection on the lake surface. When did your self-correcting memory fill that detail in?


ufology said:
When we first saw the object it came over the mountain sort of like below, but came down the side in big arcs, almost as if it were bouncing.
Click to expand...


Or almost as if it was the headlights on a car taking the curves on, say, Windermere Loop Road.

In any case, it's just a story, so it doesn't matter what explanation we come up with, does it?
 
Last edited:
So the illustration is consistent to the story. If that was how large it appeared 3km away the object was far larger than described.
 
Tomtomkent said:
So the illustration is consistent to the story. If that was how large it appeared 3km away the object was far larger than described.
Click to expand...


I think Mr Olog is starting to realise that he's got either the size or the distance wrong, and there's no believable way to reconcile the two.

Most people would have come to this realisation years ago and said something like "I wonder what that was" but the power of the "OMG . . . aliens!" side is too strong for some to resist.
 
Last edited:
Every time you have gone back over this incident with others you have most probably added to and changed your original memories of the event. The problems of memory are well known among those in the justice system as the result of experiments done that demonstrate how our faith in our memory is unjustified.
Several studies have been conducted on human memory and on subjects’ propensity to remember erroneously events and details that did not occur. Elizabeth Loftus performed experiments in the mid-seventies demonstrating the effect of a third party’s introducing false facts into memory.4 Subjects were shown a slide of a car at an intersection with either a yield sign or a stop sign. Experimenters asked participants questions, falsely introducing the term "stop sign" into the question instead of referring to the yield sign participants had actually seen. Similarly, experimenters falsely substituted the term "yield sign" in questions directed to participants who had actually seen the stop sign slide. The results indicated that subjects remembered seeing the false image. In the initial part of the experiment, subjects also viewed a slide showing a car accident. Some subjects were later asked how fast the cars were traveling when they "hit" each other, others were asked how fast the cars were traveling when they "smashed" into each other. Those subjects questioned using the word "smashed" were more likely to report having seen broken glass in the original slide. The introduction of false cues altered participants’ memories.
Click to expand...
http://agora.stanford.edu/sjls/Issue One/fisher&tversky.htm
 
It is kind of surreal to watch how the story adapts/evolve depending on problems pointed out. :D
 
ufology said:
No not stormy, and the object moved way too fast and was way too bright. Otherwise the floating lantern explanation wouldn't be too bad.
Click to expand...
Again, you're conflating two separate sightings. Bright Shiny Thing #2 did move fast according to your account, but Bright Shiny Thing #1 did not; it is BST#1 that might have been a Chinese lantern. Here's your original description of BST#1:

folio on folio's website said:
Just after midnight a glowing blue-white orb sprung up from behind the mountain range across the lake and bounced down the side of the mountain in three big arcs. ...... The sphere itself was about as wide as a Volkswagen beetle as seen from the side, and it had a plasma like glow surrounding it,
Click to expand...
 
Toke said:
It is kind of surreal to watch how the story adapts/evolve depending on problems pointed out. :D
Click to expand...

It has, hasn't it.

We won't see the Caddy story because it is so "out there" and there is no place for it to go, is there, ufology. Why does a case of white line fever get a place in your serious UFO research website?
 
ufology said:
Actually the one below is a closer illustration. Not exactly the same but it gets the idea across. When we first saw the object it came over the mountain sort of like the image below, but came down the side in big arcs, almost as if it were bouncing. Later it came up and did the maneuvers described in earlier posts.
Click to expand...
No.

Later, something came up and did maneuvers as described on your website, according to your original story.

You have no way of knowing that BST#1 and BST#2 were the same object.

ETA: in fact, considering that #1 and #2 were doing completely different things, it's more reasonable to assume that they were different things.
 
Last edited:
ufology said:
The illustration is not "pure imagination". It is an illustration of what the object I saw from much farther away would probably seem like much closer up. The terrain, color, size and shape are all about right.
Click to expand...

Amazing what detail you can recall from a 37 year old memory. Of an event that lasted mere seconds. That you didn't investigate, nor record. Sounds imaginative all right. Invented even. Fashioned.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom