It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Virgin Galactic Promo Video and serious question.

page: 3
5
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 30 2007 @ 07:48 PM
link   


Yes because 1000's of Pilots, Militry Personel, Police Officers, Firemen, Airtraffic Control Personel and Astronaughts are all stupid dimwits who can't even tie there own shoe laces.


There are varying degrees of intelligence and thus varying degrees of stupidity. Simply because somebody can tie their shoelaces does not mean they are intelligent, I'm pretty sure certain apes can be trained to tie their shoe laces. I never made any reference to the severity of stupidity involved, it was simply an observational question based on my experience. I am not implying that all people who see UFOs are stupid, I am simply stating that I have yet to see an intelligent person profess to have seen UFOs, and please note academic or vocational ability does not define or measure intelligence. Of course an UFO could be anything that an observer can not immediately identify so I'll clarify my statement by narrowing it to only people who profess to have seen alien craft. Show me a truly intelligent person who insists they have seen alien craft and I'll happily retract my statement.




That one statement is more than ignorant enough to invalidate just about everything else you have said!


The level of my ignorance does not invalidate or have any baring on reality. Many of the things I have stated have been proven to be true, and while that does not make everything I say correct you'd be a fool to believe that the correctness of one statement validates or invalidates any other unrelated statement. Anything I say can only be taken as opinion unless otherwise verified as fact. Mind you, having said that I'd like to see you try and prove my ignorance.




posted on Jul, 31 2007 @ 09:07 AM
link   

Originally posted by himselfe
There are varying degrees of intelligence and thus varying degrees of stupidity. Simply because somebody can tie their shoelaces does not mean they are intelligent, I'm pretty sure certain apes can be trained to tie their shoe laces. I never made any reference to the severity of stupidity involved, it was simply an observational question based on my experience. I am not implying that all people who see UFOs are stupid, I am simply stating that I have yet to see an intelligent person profess to have seen UFOs, and please note academic or vocational ability does not define or measure intelligence. Of course an UFO could be anything that an observer can not immediately identify so I'll clarify my statement by narrowing it to only people who profess to have seen alien craft. Show me a truly intelligent person who insists they have seen alien craft and I'll happily retract my statement.



So how exactly do I prove to you a person is intelligent? You just said "academic or vocational ability does not define or measure intelligence" So I could give you a collage Professor or someone with 150+ I.Q. and you could still argue that person is not intelligent.


Mind you, having said that I'd like to see you try and prove my ignorance.


Doesn't this relate to the first half of your post, as in it is hard to prove someones level of intelligence, however I would argue that everyone is ignorant over something. I would also argue prove you are not ignornt, statements like "Tell me, why is it only ever stupid people that see UFOs?" make me think you are quite ignorant in that area.



posted on Jul, 31 2007 @ 03:31 PM
link   


So how exactly do I prove to you a person is intelligent?


Show them to me and have them talk to me.



So I could give you a collage Professor or someone with 150+ I.Q. and you could still argue that person is not intelligent.


Most certainly, I.Q., despite it's misleading name or what Mensa members will have you believe, does not measure intelligence. I.Q Tests only measure a small subset what could be classed as a form of intelligence and, as any competent psychologist will tell you, a person's I.Q can vary depending on the conditions in which the test is taken and the mental state of the person at any given time.



Doesn't this relate to the first half of your post, as in it is hard to prove someone's level of intelligence, however I would argue that everyone is ignorant over something. I would also argue prove you are not ignorant, statements like "Tell me, why is it only ever stupid people that see UFOs?" make me think you are quite ignorant in that area.


Indeed I could be quite ignorant, in fact if there are intelligent people who insist they have seen alien craft on this planet then I am most certainly ignorant as I don't know about them. I never stated I was right, I was simply asking an observational question based on my experience. A question which was no more ignorant than the original question that started this thread, and certainly no more ignorant than the posts that imply without tangible evidence that our local space is swarming with UFOs. Simply because you feel insulted by my observation and not by theirs does not mean my perspective is any less valid.

[edit on 31-7-2007 by himselfe]



posted on Aug, 1 2007 @ 04:20 PM
link   
I'd just like to ask nicely that we keep to the topic of this thread because i feel bad for the op while people are having personal discussions.

As i was reading this thread i realized how the first moon walk video was quite low quality, while the kennedy assassination video (no relation) taken 6 years prior is almost better quality. And that was just an average citizen and his camera.

I know there are many factors considered when taking a video camera to the moon, but, if we can have such nice pictures then i would expect the video to be at least a little better than it was. I don't know how much planning went into the video and photography part of the mission...but it seems like it was either not funded well enough or nobody was concerned with the video quality of one of the biggest achievements of mankind.



posted on Aug, 1 2007 @ 04:26 PM
link   
hey, himselfe, You had a valid point initially that I agree with. What I don't agree with is your self righteous and patronising tone. Stop trying to prove your intellectual superiority, and maybe try to add something constructive, not an endless wave of condesending quips



posted on Aug, 1 2007 @ 05:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by Mr Mota
I'd just like to ask nicely that we keep to the topic of this thread because i feel bad for the op while people are having personal discussions.

As i was reading this thread i realized how the first moon walk video was quite low quality, while the kennedy assassination video (no relation) taken 6 years prior is almost better quality. And that was just an average citizen and his camera.

I know there are many factors considered when taking a video camera to the moon, but, if we can have such nice pictures then i would expect the video to be at least a little better than it was. I don't know how much planning went into the video and photography part of the mission...but it seems like it was either not funded well enough or nobody was concerned with the video quality of one of the biggest achievements of mankind.


intresting observation with the moon/kennedy idea...

with regards to the moon they knew the whole world would be watching , wether u think they were faked landings or not .. why so poor quality?

if it was all real u would want to shout it to the world... if it was all faked you would want to make it look as convincing as possible. yet its terrible...



posted on Aug, 2 2007 @ 11:22 AM
link   


hey, himselfe, You had a valid point initially that I agree with. What I don't agree with is your self righteous and patronising tone. Stop trying to prove your intellectual superiority, and maybe try to add something constructive, not an endless wave of condesending quips


Please do tell me how that comment is 'constructive'. I'm not sure if you'd noticed, but I had stopped with the "endless wave of condesending quips" until Shinji re-addressed the issue, and again I had finished what I had to say on the mater until you brought it back up. I find it a bit hypocritical that you accuse me of non-constructive petty remarks when the only input you have provided to this entire thread is an impetuous attack on my objectivity, negligent to the topic at hand. Isn't it a bit of a double standard to allow others the right to defend their integrity and attack mine while disallowing me the same courtesy?
I appreciate your implication that I am 'intellectually superior' however I can assure you that that is not my guise. My only intention is to present and adhere to reality and I would much rather debate constructively. However I will not shy away from making a point for the sake of pandering to illusion. If you don't want me to persist on certain angles, don't keep re-addressing the subject, duh.



As i was reading this thread i realized how the first moon walk video was quite low quality, while the kennedy assassination video (no relation) taken 6 years prior is almost better quality. And that was just an average citizen and his camera.


I can't find a decent unedited source of the original Kennedy assassination clip on-line however a few important points must be considered while comparing footage from the two events:

The lunar landing was broadcast live over extremely long distances, there was no live broadcast happening in the section of the parade in which Kennedy was assassinated. In those days different cameras were used for live broadcasting compared to recorded footage as can be seen by the difference in quality between all live and pre-recorded footage of that era. Even if both events had been broadcast live there would be a difference in quality since ground broadcasting crews had access to much greater bandwidth and signal strength (and thus lower loss of information) than NASA had for communicating over the distance of the moon. As far as I can tell from the information available on the net the most famous clip of the Kennedy assassination was recorded using an 8mm camera, a camera which NASA could not have used for live broadcasting of the Apollo landings due to the fact that the camera records directly on to photographic film, a feature which also inherently had much greater quality than the analogue recording equipment of the time. Also due to the nature of the technique used for the live broadcast from the moon the feed had to be re-processed on the ground to make it suitable for re-broadcast to ordinary televisions. Due to the nature of analogue processing and conversion this technique also resulted in a loss of quality.

Information about the cameras used on the Apollo missions is available here. In comparison to the quality of the live broadcast, higher quality photos are available here.



posted on Aug, 2 2007 @ 04:51 PM
link   
" an impetuous attack on my objectivity".

Not at all mate. I haven't a clue where that came from. It was your TONE that I had issue with.

I did not in any way imply that you are intellectually superior, but it seems you have the need to try and appear so. That may not be deliberate, but that is how you come accross.

Sure some statements in these posts may seem naive, but just remember that some of them could be written by juniors - 12-year olds etc. Just a thought.

Anyhow for someone that was apparently had little time for this site, your last reply was on track, so I'll let it go.

Thanks for the research and insight.



posted on Aug, 2 2007 @ 05:22 PM
link   
Sometimes, government institutions and bureaucracies are the last entities to catch on to what they should be doing. They will always have a million reasons why what the public wants is idiotic, and will stick to their guns until the public turns to another source for what they need.

EDIT:

I should add that future project managers will probably make sense of this and will understand that NASA needs to change to keep up with the rate of information flow now expected by the public. We are getting to the point where when a bridge collapses, we have live footage from 2 angles within seconds of the event. In my opinion, more high quality, real-time, perspective-driven imagery beyond the standard cargo bay and earth background shots will help NASA, not waste its money. But I also suspect that they might fight that tooth and nail, as it is not the current paradigm of the controlling generation, as per the previous paragraph.

[edit on 2-8-2007 by Ectoterrestrial]



posted on Aug, 2 2007 @ 05:36 PM
link   


" an impetuous attack on my objectivity".

Not at all mate. I haven't a clue where that came from. It was your TONE that I had issue with.


Perhaps you're forgetting about the second sentence in your post:



Stop trying to prove your intellectual superiority, and maybe try to add something constructive, not an endless wave of condesending quips


That is an implication of my intention is it not?



I did not in any way imply that you are intellectually superior, but it seems you have the need to try and appear so. That may not be deliberate, but that is how you come accross.


Nothing in my posts implies that I am intellectually superior, so if I were trying to prove such a thing I'd be doing a very poor job of it and I'd have to be a fool to assume otherwise. As I have already stated my only intention is to represent reality and provide logical reasoning. Granted my attitude is abrasive and blunt, but I make no secret or shame of that.

I still fail to see how your posts are constructive or have anything to do with the topic of this thread. Double standards don't make a right
, oh sorry another 'quip'.



posted on Aug, 2 2007 @ 05:53 PM
link   
I think I would summarise it as an inability to see how you come across. You seriously need to go back and read some of your remarks to other posters. I just hope you are not like this when you are away from your computer screen. Blunt is one thing, and fine as far as I am concerned. But rude and insulting? Surely you are above that...

Anyhow you are right in that, other than trying to make you aware of resentment you are creating, I am not adding anything constructive to this thread. So I will stop right here.

Nice having a dialogue with you



posted on Aug, 2 2007 @ 06:01 PM
link   


In my opinion, more high quality, real-time, perspective-driven imagery beyond the standard cargo bay and earth background shots will help NASA, not waste its money.


In relation to public opinion you might be right. Pretty pictures could indeed persuade more tax payers and voters to support NASA and related space projects, but other than PR what actual scientific benefits would such footage provide? And what exactly do you propose they focus the cameras on, other than the emptiness of space and a few ambiguous points of light (stars)?

Don't get me wrong, I would love to see more footage of space and varying angles, but I can't imagine a black backdrop filled with a few fuzzy points of light would be too inspiring or worth the extra cost. For the pictures to be worth anything they would have to be inspirational and NASA already produces some awesome images of space.



posted on Aug, 2 2007 @ 06:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by himselfe
Simply because you feel insulted does not mean I am a troll.

I never stated that I was insulted, you assumed it. You've already shown that you cast sweeping generalisations, now you've also shown that you presume attitudes, without knowing the facts.



And really, in a subject full of ambiguities and misrepresentations, who's proponents of which happily derogate scientists and rational thinkers, people hardly have the place to wave the anti-generalisation flag. People who believe things without hard evidence and rational judgement to back them up aren't intelligent, I'm sorry but that's reality, reality bites I know, but you've got to face it at some point.


In any field of endeavour, it is fraught with danger to make sweeping generalisations, such as you did. It is also fraught with danger to make assumptions about people, or their attitudes, like you did.

Apparently, you live in a different reality to that which I do. The reality is that some people believe in Aliens, as they have experienced the hard evidence, for themselves, first-hand.

[edit on 2-8-2007 by tezzajw]



posted on Aug, 2 2007 @ 06:37 PM
link   


I think I would summarise it as an inability to see how you come across. You seriously need to go back and read some of your remarks to other posters. I just hope you are not like this when you are away from your computer screen. Blunt is one thing, and fine as far as I am concerned. But rude and insulting? Surely you are above that...


Why would you assume that I am ignorant to the consequences of my actions? I am perfectly aware of how I come across and how some of the stuff I say makes others feel, I think carefully before speaking. I simply see no reason in being polite to people who damage the prospects of humanity with stupidity and preposterous assumptions. I've tried the nice guy thing and unfortunately it gets nowhere. Unfortunately people don't stop and think until they're slapped in the face. And yes stupidity and preposterous assumptions do damage humanity's prospects, there are people who don't have the luxury of bitching and moaning about how some non-profit science agency is conspiring to prevent them from seeing white dots, and many of those people could make much better use of the resources wasted on pandering to illusions. When humanity has rid itself of poverty and the actions of the stupid don't have damaging effects on the rest of the world I'll honour people's right to be stupid without consequences.
I make no attempt to differentiate between my behaviour on-line and in real life, I see no benefit to being two-faced and dishonest, other than to pamper people's delicate egos. I treat people based on how they behave. Sure I'm a vindictive bastard but that doesn't change reality.

Having said all that, I had dropped the attitude until Shinji and you kept re-addressing the subject. You can hardly complain about my attitude while you keep bringing the issue to the forefront of the conversation.



posted on Aug, 2 2007 @ 06:43 PM
link   
Amusing seeing people talk of reality as if it's all and the same for everyone. Reality is created and shaped according to an individuals point of view, the experience they have had in their walks of life. Therefore, arguing a subject based on your reality alone is completely baseless and proves no real point. If you chose the mainstream way of life, to accept and believe everything that 'they' tell you -- just because it comes across as so convincing or because it's the direction the bandwagon is heading -- than by all means, go ahead. But please don't make insulting generalisations based only on your limited and shallow minded point of view/reality. It only proves what we have suspected the moment you came here to "enlighten us" ...your ignorance in real knowledge -- not the primititive/flawed mainstream "scientific" crap you keep throwing at us. It gets so old...


Oh how I miss the Einstien's of this world, now he had some real knowledge (read my signature).


[edit on 2/8/07 by Navieko]

[edit on 2/8/07 by Navieko]



posted on Aug, 2 2007 @ 06:54 PM
link   

Originally posted by Mr Mota
I know there are many factors considered when taking a video camera to the moon, but, if we can have such nice pictures then i would expect the video to be at least a little better than it was. I don't know how much planning went into the video and photography part of the mission...but it seems like it was either not funded well enough or nobody was concerned with the video quality of one of the biggest achievements of mankind.


I heard that there was a degree of incompatibility between the NASA transmissions and what was relayed on US television. There was some conversion process being used, and supposedly there is a better version of the film footage that was not the TV broadcast conversion.

Essentially, what was broadcast on television was an improvised hack. I don't know the details of the story. Perhaps someone else here can fill in those fact thingies.


[edit on 2-8-2007 by Ectoterrestrial]



posted on Aug, 2 2007 @ 07:18 PM
link   
Although this thread has turned into some sort of personal war .. lots of you had very plausable things to contribute..

yes even you himselfe ..hmm maybe more so you but :p , you started with a great view but presented rather harshly . but you finished strong.

remember like i said i didnt say because aliens are zipping past .. when i first posted i just couldnt believe the difference in quality compared to NASA. u know the big boys.

But many have posted great ideas/reasons why and i thank you all ..



posted on Aug, 2 2007 @ 07:28 PM
link   


I never stated that I was insulted, you assumed it. You've already shown that you cast sweeping generalisations, now you've also shown that you presume attitudes, without knowing the facts.


There are statements and there are implications. If you felt no aversion to my viewpoint why make a point of attempting to derogate me? And since you so conveniently sidestepped the preceding question to my statement, I'll ask again, trolling how?



In any field of endeavour, it is fraught with danger to make sweeping generalisations, such as you did. It is also fraught with danger to make assumptions about people, or their attitudes, like you did.


I agree, that hardly mitigates the point though.



Apparently, you live in a different reality to that which I do.


By that are you implying that you live in a reality where people who believe things without hard evidence and rational judgement to back them up are intelligent?



The reality is that some people believe in Aliens, as they have experienced the hard evidence, for themselves, first-hand.


As I have already stated, I do not deny the inevitability that aliens do exist in a universe as vast and awesome as the one we live in, given the astronomical numbers of planets that must exist and the robustness of life. However, to assume or insist that aliens frequently visit us and that our governments are in a conspiracy to hide this from us, without evidence, is stupid. If there is evidence, I have yet to see it, and if there are intelligent people who insist they have the evidence or have seen alien visitors (other than the foreign kind) I have yet to see them. But as I have already requested, please do prove me wrong.
While we're on the abrasive path again, I might as well ask this question: In resemblance to the question about low quality NASA footage, why is footage of so-called 'UFOs' always low quality and ambiguous?
Since I stepped up to the mark and proved that there is indeed freely available high-quality NASA footage of space, feel free to prove me wrong and show me high quality footage of real 'UFOs'.



posted on Aug, 2 2007 @ 07:56 PM
link   


Although this thread has turned into some sort of personal war .. lots of you had very plausable things to contribute..

yes even you himselfe ..hmm maybe more so you but :p , you started with a great view but presented rather harshly . but you finished strong.


I'd like to take this opportunity to personally apologise to you for any implications I have made in regards to your integrity. You have risen above my abrasive attitude and have shown that you really are simply interested in finding out the truth. I could see that fairly early on, which is why I altered my approach in regards to the actual topic of this thread.

I can not however apologise for my attitude towards others who, contrary to their assertions, do nothing but fuel the fire and prove my point.



Amusing seeing people talk of reality as if it's all and the same for everyone. Reality is created and shaped according to an individuals point of view, the experience they have had in their walks of life.


No that's what's called opinion, do not mistake opinion for reality. In our universe there is only one reality, unless of course you're insane, and the whole point of science is to understand that reality.



Therefore, arguing a subject based on your reality alone is completely baseless and proves no real point.


Ironic.



If you chose the mainstream way of life, to accept and believe everything that 'they' tell you -- just because it comes across as so convincing or because it's the direction the bandwagon is heading -- than by all means, go ahead. But please don't make insulting generalisations based only on your limited and shallow minded point of view/reality.


You, my misguided friend, are the exact reason I took such an abrasive standpoint from the start, and the exact reason why I make such generalisations, I knew from past experience that somewhere down the line, a person such as your self would come along and say what you have just said. Don't believe me? Just browse back to one of my earlier posts: "... the fact is I've spent many years of my life trying to reason and rationally debate with conspiracy theorists and the like and it's always resulted in the same thing, me finding out that they really have no point, and them accusing me of being an ignorant unbelieving sheep, so these days I avoid wasting time."



It only proves what we have suspected the moment you came here to "enlighten us" ...your ignorance in real knowledge -- not the primititive/flawed mainstream "scientific" crap you keep throwing at us. It gets so old...


I take it you have evidence to back your standpoint?



posted on Aug, 2 2007 @ 08:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by himselfe
There are statements and there are implications. If you felt no aversion to my viewpoint why make a point of attempting to derogate me?

There was no attempt to 'derogate' you. I stated a fact. You made a sweeping generalisation about people who see UFOs, that's a fact. You assumed that I was insulted, when I wasn't, that's a fact. As a neutral observer to the thread, I can post my opinion as freely as you post your's. You were trolling and I pointed that out to you, as did a moderator. "Why do only stupid people see UFOs?" is a generalisation that is false.

To answer your question, when you score a warning from a moderator, which you did, then you were breaking the forum rules - you were trolling. You can see that one of your posts has been edited, where the personal attack that you made against someone has been removed. Again, that's trolling.



By that are you implying that you live in a reality where people who believe things without hard evidence and rational judgement to back them up are intelligent?

No. Not at all. I am not implying that. Again, that's your assumption, without any facts. Some people believe in aliens, because they have seen them. They can't prove it to other people, but they have had first-hand experiences with aliens. Whether or not anyone else needs to believe them, or even cares to believe is up to them. That's the reality. You, me or anyone else trying to tell these people that they have not seen aliens, is fraught with danger, as we were not there to witness what they did.



new topics

top topics



 
5
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join