Saudi Sun Dog UFO.

reply to post by Albertarocks


I was going to ignore this but I thought I'd point a couple of things out for you.

Firstly, NateNute is not a newbie, in fact they've been a member longer than me.

NateNute Registered: 21/7/07

Me Registered: 13/4/08

So your argument of me picking on a newbie fails miserably.

Secondly, your claim that GreenEyedLeo lied is an Ad hominem attack in itself, as is your claim that she and I team up to trash threads, what a load of crap!

Thirdly, it would seem quite apparent that none of my posts were edited, does this not tell you something?

I recommend you have a really good read of this thread, because I think the shoe fits quite nicely:

The Rise Of The ATS Invertebrate: or, it takes a spine to be a conspiracy theorist.


PS Thanks for adding me as a respected foe, I'm glad I've earnt your respect out of all this.

reply to post by Albertarocks

The OP didn't ask for, nor deserve to be given this treatment. And when we constantly see that everywhere Chadickus is posting and attacking people, greeneyedleo is usually along for the ride to help tag team on any topic they decide to trash... apparently just for the fun of it. We don't need this kind of behavior on any site, let alone one who's going to such detail to keep a clean image as ATS is doing.

I want you to show me where I have tagged teamed with Chadwickus on this site. You accused me. I want proof now. You have falsely accused me and THAT behavior should not be tolerated here. It is you who is dirtying up this site by not contributing and by coming here for the sole purpose of trashing Chadwickus and me.

So, please provide the proof I'm tag teaming with anyone. Because you will not find any. Its a LIE.

Sounds like some people cant accept the truth and have to resort to personal attacks such as yourself. Feel free to come back on this thread and contribute and provide some substance to support this topic. *waiting*

And I never attacked the OP. I presented my side and the troll who came along to argue failed to present his side. I'm sure if I did anything wrong agains T&C the MODs who were watching this thread would have stepped in.

reply to post by Albertarocks

was lied to by greeneyedleo about the sundogs that she sees all the time in Denver and in her first post declaring that what we're looking at here is a sundog. She knows, she "sees them all the time in Denver". hahaha, I'll just bet you do. Just as a reminder, these are sundogs:

And I did not lie. I got the "name" wrong and corrected it after learning what the proper name was. I do see this often. And I do see sun dogs often. I did my research for the proper name, came back and corrected myself....as seen by my edit:

Im editing this to add that I said "sundog" incorrectly and the correct term is: "Iridescent Pileus"

[edit on 4/18/2009 by greeneyedleo]

You are contributing NOTHING to this thread.



**I think I finally know what "tag teaming" is by many here: "When 2 or more people with similar beliefs, thoughts and/or conclusions, post on the same thread or similar threads and agree with each other even if they never communicate with each other about said thread - and you dont agree with them."

However, if "When 2 or more people with similar beliefs, thoughts and/or conclusions, post on the same thread or similar threads and agree with each other even if they never communicate with each other about said thread - and you do agree with them then that is not tag teaming"

Got it!



[edit on 4/19/2009 by greeneyedleo]

Originally posted by Chadwickus
reply to post by Albertarocks

... it would seem quite apparent that none of my posts were edited, does this not tell you something?

What's that supposed to tell me? That you're good at typing? I have no comment on that because as you can see, I can't even figure out this quote business. I expect you'll take a dirty shot about that, so go ahead if it's gonna make you feel bigger.

You know Chad, I'm probably twice your age and in my lifetime I've had the privilege of meeting a whole lot of people from Australia. Most of them I met in the world of rugby because they like to come to Canada in our summertimes to play and stay in great shape. I've met lots of Aussies at work and through friends and liked them all. Even during the second world war, there were literally thousands and thousands of Aussies, Americans and British who came to one of the flight schools in Canada for flight training. My mother worked at one of them and her favorite "foreigners", by far, were the Australians. She told me more than once: "Those were the good old days. Boy, could those guys dance". I always got a great kick out of that.

I have a great deal of respect for debaters. It takes some spine to be a debater. It takes some intelligence to be a good debater. It takes a big ego to be a confident debater. But none of the great debaters I've ever met use condescending tactics or arrogance or an "I'm better than you" attitude, as you do. They learned long ago that such tactics weaken their own position and are not at all effective in making a point. Those tactics simply ruin what would have otherwise been an interesting discussion. There is no place for anger in a debate, that's why it's such a stupid mistake to use inflammatory tactics. That only convinces the listeners of the debate that it's simply time to leave the room.

PS Thanks for adding me as a respected foe, I'm glad I've earnt your respect out of all this.

As for adding you to my respected foes list, "respected" is the word that ATS dictates I use, and in this case it doesn't fit because you haven't "earnt" it. Therefore, I've removed you from that list and simply put your name as the first entry in my ignore list. Great accomplishment!

In all honesty, I hate to do that because in the future you might have something very valuable to say and I'd miss it. But since you're undoubtedly going to deliver it with that condescending attitude you love to sport, I'm ok with missing it.

In my long and happy life, I've never met an Australian I didn't like... until now. Great job

best regards,

[edit on 19-4-2009 by Albertarocks] Edit after getting tip from a fellow poster about how to correct the quotes feature.

[edit on 19-4-2009 by Albertarocks]

In case anyone's still interested in the original image, here's a site displaying lots of atmospheric phenonena, including Nacreous Clouds, of which the OP is an example

Atmospheric Optics

WG3

reply to post by Albertarocks


You know, being called condescending and arrogant doesn't sit well with me, I don't see how I have been these things in this thread, I have contributed far more than you have, in fact you've spent pretty much the whole thread targeting me whilst I've gone and done a bit of research to help explain what we saw in the OP. I would describe my posting methods to be blunt but never rude, the fact is, the OP had already decided on what they saw in that video to be alien and didn't like when they got called out on it. How can this:

Originally posted by Chadwickus
Why is this in aliens and UFO's?

You actually think this is some alien craft?

Bit of a leap of logic don't you think?

Be deemed as an attack? Or arrogant? Or condescending?

This is where my comment on the mods not editing my posts meant, that no mod found my posts to be rude, condescending, off topic, attacking or anything in breach of the T&C's. Except for you and the other sook who has me on ignore. It's sad to see you put me on ignore as well, because it's such a huge cop out. You will never see me put anyone one ignore, I welcome any and all criticism, as long as I have a right to reply (which you now won't allow me to do).

Sorry if that's too arrogant for you...

I was perfectly fine ending this topic on page one as a cloud formation. Calling me ignorant because a live leaker called it a cloud in the video title seems a bit childish. Where I live, we do not ever see these. Had I not seen that video, chances are I would never see anything similar to that again. Let's not be so quick to drop the judgment hammer on everyone.

ATTENTION

Let's get back on topic please!

No more personal attacks or off-topic banter.

Any further off-topic posts will be removed with a point deduction.

Focus on the post NOT the poster.

hmmm I watched the video and looked at the examples of other atmospheric sillyness and in all honesty to me they look nothing a like....

to me the OP footage almost looks like some kind of plasma or related substance coming out of the cloud....

buth thats just what I saw....

Originally posted by waveguide3
In case anyone's still interested in the original image, here's a site displaying lots of atmospheric phenonena, including Nacreous Clouds, of which the OP is an example

Atmospheric Optics

WG3

Waveguide --
Thanks for posting a link to that site; It's a great resource site.

Just in case your post got "lost in the noise", I'll call attention to it again.

Originally posted by Soylent Green Is People
It's a great resource site.

It is. Thanks for the nudge.

I always go there whever I see strange clouds, rays, shadows, etc. discussed on ATS. One way or another, most strange phenomena will be in there. There's nowt stranger than the sky.

WG3

reply to post by waveguide3


Yes, thank you wave guide.

A very good source there with some great pictures.

It's amazing what can be produced when clouds catch the sunlight.

Excuse me, but is it forbidden to object to faulty logic?

1. What follows is a quote from www.abovetopsecret.com...:

“…They state that there is a similar … and then conclude that the … and the … is the same. This is a fallacy in formal logic. If x is y, and then x will have exactly the same properties as y. One cannot conclude that x is y just because they believe x is similar to y. If that is the case I could say "fog is the same as smoke, because it looks kind of similar".”

Hence we cannot simply conclude that the object in the OP video “is” a lenticular cloud, just because it looks somehow similar.

2. Btw, în fact it doesn’t even look so similar. The object in the OP video is still very different/special from the “lenticular” clouds, in general as well as regarding some details I pointed out in my last post on page 2.

[edit on 20-4-2009 by WonderfulWorld]

Originally posted by WonderfulWorld

Hence we cannot simply conclude that the object in the OP video “is” a lenticular cloud, just because it looks somehow similar.

But don't you think it is a rather big hint that the video is called: "Bizzare Cloud In Saudi"? Don't you think the video would have been called somethig completely else if there really was a giant alien spaceship emerging from that cloud?


And regarding clouds, there is no big cloud factory in the sky producing them in certain sizes and shapes. Clouds tend to be different from each other...

Originally posted by ziggystar60

Originally posted by WonderfulWorld
Hence we cannot simply conclude that the object in the OP video “is” a lenticular cloud, just because it looks somehow similar.

But don't you think it is a rather big hint that the video is called: "Bizzare Cloud In Saudi"? Don't you think the video would have been called somethig completely else if there really was a giant alien spaceship emerging from that cloud?

A private poster's video title is no real point to decide on an ATS argument. Anybody can make up any title at will. Additionally the video poster obviously just couldn't explain, so he called it "bizzar".

... And regarding clouds, there is no big cloud factory in the sky producing them in certain sizes and shapes. Clouds tend to be different from each other...

As explained, x isn't y just because it's similar to it. And you cannot bridge that by stating: "but all Ys look different too". That would be too easy. Every smoke looks different but that still doesn't prove smoke = fog.

[edit on 20-4-2009 by WonderfulWorld]

reply to post by WonderfulWorld


Let's try a comparison to more common clouds:
These are all Cumulonimbus clouds.
They are not all exactly alike, mostly they are all similar.
However, they are still recognizable as clouds, and are still in the same classification.
[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/06b438c82b77.jpg[/atsimg]
[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/6c6f10c2e92f.jpg[/atsimg]
[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/5ddbcdea8fed.jpg[/atsimg]
[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/3c732df4c0fc.jpg[/atsimg]

[edit on 20-4-2009 by RuneSpider]

I don’t see your conclusion. Put it into words. You still seem to state: “It’s similar, so it’s equal”, which is not a logical sequence.

Btw let me make this clear:

1. I’m not trying to exercise denial. Fact is, there’s a video depicting a rather strange object. Now it was you and/or other ones asserting: “That’s only a cloud”. Accordingly, it’s you/them who has/have to prove the assertion. Not me.

I am only underlining you cannot logically conclude it is a cloud and decide the discussion from just the fact that it looks roughly similar to a cloud. Assuming it was a spacecraft hiding in an artificial cloud then it would OF COURSE have an outer look “similar” to a cloud. Thus a mere superficial “similarity” is no substantial proof yet for being only a natural cloud (especially not for a conspiracy site discussion).

2. And if you think the mere assumption is ridiculous, then let me ask you why are you here. As you know ATS has thousands of members who believe in or even saw extraterrestrial crafts. So why is it so outlandish and ridiculous to assume it COULD have been one. If there are aliens visiting us (excuse the wild assertion) they’d certainly be capable of engineering a silly little cloud.

[edit on 21-4-2009 by WonderfulWorld]

reply to post by WonderfulWorld

I am here, very simply, because I work a ten hour shift, and I get bored. ATS provides a fun, and sometimes interesting mental exercise.

My conclusion is, you are stating that cloud X does not appear exactly the same as cloud definition B.

So, I have provided a example of clouds that fall in a cloud definition, in this case Cumulonimbus.
My example being that despite being a specific class of cloud, the clouds themselves that fall under that classification themselves are not exactly the same, and in fact it's impossible to expect the same shape and structure between two different clouds, as they themselves change shape and size while they are being observed.

(especially not for a conspiracy site discussion).

True, this is a conspiracy site, however, the motto for the site is Deny Ignorance, not entertain any slight possibility.

It appears to be exactly as it's been stated, iridescent pileus.

And if you think the mere assumption is ridiculous

Never said the assumption was ridiculous.
However, it is a iridescent cloud, sometimes we get similar things in Florida.

And stating that it is not a iridescent cloud because it doesn't look exactly like a example of a irridescant cloud, is ridiculous.

reply to post by RuneSpider


The heck, it is already again the case that the ones losing the argument start to make condescending remarks (“is ridiculous”). I did not call your claims ridiculous, but politely and thoroughly explained why mine are not, which was not condescending at all.

And I explained about 3 times and in all details WHY it’s wrong and illogical to draw the conclusion “if similar then equal”. But all you do is just keep on repeating the fallacy in logic explained above, i.e. to assert it was certainly a cloud, just because it (allegedly) has a similar appearance.

[edit on 21-4-2009 by WonderfulWorld]

reply to post by WonderfulWorld
I can help you. Think of it like this:
One of your feet looks similar but not exactly the same as your other foot. But it's still one of your feet. It's not an alien spaceship.

Originally posted by Sam60
I can help you. Think of it like this:
One of your feet looks similar but not exactly the same as your other foot. But it's still one of your feet. It's not an alien spaceship.

Thanks for “helping” me. Convincing. Are you serious?

The “logic” in your example only “works” because you know in advance they’re your feet. But if I give you a 100 pictures of different feet, you can only tell two ones belong to the same person if they look the same or at least very similar. And that’s the situation we deal with here. We have no advance knowledge, thus we need an EXACT comparison (I already referred to this in my first post on this page: “If x is y, and then x will have exactly(!) the same properties as y”). And actually, we have by no means an exact sameness, at most a vague, superficial similarity. And especially no sameness regarding some odd details as described in my last post on page 2.