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.

 

Never before seen UFO photos - Debunkers?

page: 14
56
<< 11  12  13    15  16  17 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 8 2010 @ 02:54 PM
link   
reply to post by Esoteric Teacher
 


He wasnt calling ATs members a fool looks he was more specifically talking to you. And If you missed the point of the thread id have to say i tend to agree. The ops point is this everytime a UFO pic is posted people dont evaluate the picture, it will get 50 stars and the comments are something like great picture with stuff like this the government wont be abled to hide it much longer. Please this is a waste of every ones time anything you want to use as support for a belief need to be tested for fraud. As you can see in this very thread alot of great pics posts didnt even bother to read the entire post.

This is why UFO related stuff will never be taken seriously because no one bothers or seems to care if the information is accurate. I believe UFOs are real but im not willing to take the first picture i see and go UFO! First i see if i can explain it another way if i cant then its a UFO because it cant be identified!!!!




posted on Jul, 8 2010 @ 02:55 PM
link   
reply to post by dragonridr
 


Decided to add this at the bottom looked like it belonged there!

DENY IGNORANCE



posted on Jul, 8 2010 @ 02:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by InfaRedMan


Originally posted by Esoteric Teacher
At least i have shown myself, unlike you who hides behind your avatar.

Really? Which monkey is you?








































































Originally posted by InfaRedMan


Originally posted by Esoteric Teacher
At least i have shown myself, unlike you who hides behind your avatar.

Really? Which monkey is you?



< this one


i hope this provides you with less obfuscattion.
i am attempting to be less obscure, less evasive, and less unclear


you should be happy, i did take your advice, did i not?


ob·fus·cat·ing
Etymology: Late Latin obfuscatus, past participle of obfuscare, from Latin ob- in the way + fuscus dark brown — more at ob-, dusk
Date: 1577
transitive verb
1 a : darken b : to make obscure
2 : confuse
intransitive verb
: to be evasive, unclear, or confusing


or was this picture photoshopped and should not be trusted?

[edit on 8-7-2010 by Esoteric Teacher]



posted on Jul, 8 2010 @ 03:30 PM
link   
truly pointless.

photos can be faked? people use photoshop to create photographs with UFO's in them? welcome to reality.

idiots with untrained eyes in the public/on a forum will believe them? welcome to reality.

it's truly pointless to obsucre the line between fact an fiction to what is already such an obscured and grey subject. how is it necessary to prove that it is easy to fake something such as UFO's, when real people have a hard enough time getting their legitimate photos and stories across to others who refuse to believe them? it doesn't matter in the least. ignore the morons on this website that blindly believe every photo they see, and ignore the stalwart skeptic who denies everything they see as well. both are blind, neither contribute scientifically objective insight. sheep, in extreme fear of being of being right (blind believers) and extreme fear of being wrong (blind skeptics).

thank you for needlessly and pointlessly blurring the line of reality, and credibility, and an honest man's effort to not feel alone and outcast, with fraud and attention seeking, even more in what is already an obscure and difficult enough subject. there have always been hoaxers and honest people who have no reason to lie regarding UFO's/UFO phenomena. you aren't adressing anything new, and there were always be empty skeptics who get off on being elitists and spread the "i impress girls with my brains" schtick way too thin since highschool/college but it's all their ego has left to cling to.

so what if i read your thread and go out and try to find and photograph UFO's and i actually do? but everyone denies my empirical and photographic evidence?
or if i'm a skeptic and go out and actually see a UFO? but i check myself into a hospital for a mental disorder or to test if i was drugged?

or if i want to go find UFO's but i don't ever capture one on film? but the bizarre things that happened to me when i was a child or teenager or adult can't be forgotten or explained?
or if i don't want to find UFO's and i don't even look? and i deny everyone's claims no matter what?

none of it matters at all, except to those who wish to see it in a certain way. the only thing that matters is those who were forced to understand and see it as truth because there was no other way TO view it except as a cold hard reality.

logic does not dictate the province of the skeptic, fear does. lack of evidence is not evidence of lack. true, vigilant objectivity of your changing world and pursuing truth and knowledge unendingly will keep the species alive, not the deflection of change and the unknown.

we have to look into these events no matter what. they matter deeply to some people, and have affected people in extreme and arbitrary ways. we can't ignore eachother because we think it can't be true.



posted on Jul, 8 2010 @ 03:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by dragonridr
reply to post by Esoteric Teacher
 


He wasnt calling ATs members a fool looks he was more specifically talking to you.


his reponses where he called ATSers "fools" were more specifically not directed towards myself, rather they were responses to other ATSers posts. it would seem the facts are inconsistent with the first sentence of your post contribution. By all means, don't let the facts get in the way of your ATS contributions.



posted on Jul, 8 2010 @ 05:12 PM
link   

Originally posted by Esoteric Teacher

Originally posted by dragonridr
reply to post by Esoteric Teacher
 


He wasnt calling ATs members a fool looks he was more specifically talking to you.


his reponses where he called ATSers "fools" were more specifically not directed towards myself, rather they were responses to other ATSers posts. it would seem the facts are inconsistent with the first sentence of your post contribution. By all means, don't let the facts get in the way of your ATS contributions.


What's better? You included the poster(s) names that the OP was responding to!

(Now you see why I said I was not going to type it a second time, since they were unable to read it the first time.)

Now it has been typed out at least 5 times (6 with original), and they still can't see it.

Fnords anyone?

(I just can't seem to stay out of here, I guess I understand "what part of I'm done", the same part as IRM!
)



posted on Jul, 8 2010 @ 05:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by K J Gunderson

I usually enjoy your posts quite a bit. This one...? Assumptions and delusions are two different things. "Misperceptions" is not a mental illness, symptom, or even a word.


misperceptions is not a word according to whom?

i think you may have contracted a misperception...


mis·per·ceive (mspr-sv)
tr.v. mis·per·ceived, mis·per·ceiv·ing, mis·per·ceives
To perceive incorrectly; misunderstand.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

misper·ception (-spshn) n.
Source:www.thefreedictionary.com...



here are 577,000 more results from google with hits for the word "misperception" that in your claim you say is not even a word.
www.google.com...

why bother to try to discredit photographs when you cannot even agree with society concerning what words you utilize to debunk "most ufo photographs" as The Zomar stated as fact in the op?


[edit on 8-7-2010 by Esoteric Teacher]



posted on Jul, 8 2010 @ 05:33 PM
link   
reply to post by black cat
 

I respectfully disagree. You have a different opinion and that's fine. Hope you don't mind if we present our own points of view.

In my opinion it's not about poking fun at people; it illustrates that we need to get as much information as we can before we make a decision as to the veracity of whatever is being presented to us -- and that doesn't only apply to alleged UFO images, but to any other potentially important text information or images/videos that are placed before us.

Like most probably did, I was assessing the OP pictures and the stories that went with them even while reading through, and I already had serious doubts about at least two of the images. Having had some years of experience with using Photoshop and similar software I was looking for the tell-tale signs that would give away a fake, or alternatively (if the signs were lacking) give us something to consider in more detail. The stories were bland and bare-bones enough that they wouldn't yield much, and in any case the main object in this case was to study the pictures.

It was rather amusing to then have the OP tell me that all the pics (and ergo the stories) were faked. I got the point at once and in no way do I see the post as counter-productive.

As to the query by another poster -- about why would anyone fake images -- the reasons are many. It reminds me of that guy some months back who faked a story that his son had accidentally flown off in a small balloon (that was actually "UFO" shaped).

Look at the coverage it got! Okay, look at the trouble it got him in as well... Serves him right. But the point is, moronic idea or not, he did it to get some publicity. People who fake pictures might do it to get attention, or do it just for the "fun" of fooling people with no actual point in mind (unlike the OP, who made a very specific point), or perhaps to try and milk some money, or whatever. And some people are just a bit nuts, I guess.

The OP is making the point that it's not all that hard to produce something plausible these days, and with skill and a bit of patience the fakes can be very hard to pick. We need to always be aware if that, but also approach such things with a degree of open-mindedness.

Regards,

Mike
Edited for typos.


[edit on 8/7/10 by JustMike]



posted on Jul, 8 2010 @ 06:15 PM
link   
I admit I did call people fools. I simply can't understand how anyone could be offended from this thread. The only way you could be offended is if you immediately believed those photos to be real and found out that you are the kind of person that this thread was attempting to correct.

Thank you for those who were good sports about it.
Thank you for those who can comprehend the point I illustrated.

I am not out for laughs.

I am not saying UFO's don't exist.

And I wasn't trying to show my PS "skill"

Please read the entire thread before you post.

Esoteric Teacher - Please stop trying to derail my thread. I don't care about what photos of blobs you found on the internet. Whether it is a UFO or not, this isn't the thread to debate it. Make your own thread.



posted on Jul, 8 2010 @ 06:17 PM
link   
reply to post by Esoteric Teacher
 


LMAO!!!!!

This is exactly why I was asking you to show me what you were talking about. Your specific examples are well, lacking at best? The OP never called anyone fools. Once people came in, were fooled, and then lashed out about it - he did mention that fooling yes. I never denied that and I do not think anyone else did. That was not your accusation. If I start a thread on anything and at some point call someone a fool for saying something foolish in that thread, will you also be telling people I started a thread to call people fools?

The leap in logic you are taking to justify your anger is only doing more to highlight what has gone so horribly wrong with the UFO forum.

Look how many of you that took these photos and ignored the text are asking that the UFO forum be more like you all. Sick sick sick.

'Stop coming in here and reminding us to pay attention to detail and ask questions. Stop calling us foolish after we angrily lash out because we LET OURSELVES be fooled. We do not want to take the time to really look at anything, question anything, or god forbid research anything. We just want pretty pictures we can either praise as awesome evidence of play computer chair expert and debunk all by ourselves and look smart! That is all we want in our UFO forum!!!! JUNK MORE JUNK WE CAN BLINDLY ACCEPT!!!! Reading details is no fun at all and we are mad that you tested us and WE FAILED!!! WHAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA!!!!!'


Not the UFO forum that brought me to ATS but getting there. Good luck with your crusade. I see twisting logic, taking things out of context, and using reactions to justify what you said were proactive comments is making me really desperate to read your analysis on the next blurry photo.



posted on Jul, 8 2010 @ 06:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by Esoteric Teacher

Originally posted by dragonridr
reply to post by Esoteric Teacher
 


He wasnt calling ATs members a fool looks he was more specifically talking to you.


his reponses where he called ATSers "fools" were more specifically not directed towards myself, rather they were responses to other ATSers posts.


If only you understood what that meant in the face of your claim of starting this thread to call people fools.

Hell, if I start a thread about good diet and just ask people to suggest ideas - anyone telling me to eat canned air will be called foolish. I now know that you will be the first to come in and point out that I started a thread to call people fools.

Maybe there is a bug on a windshield this time would be better spent mulling over for you?



posted on Jul, 8 2010 @ 06:30 PM
link   

Originally posted by Esoteric Teacher

Originally posted by K J Gunderson

I usually enjoy your posts quite a bit. This one...? Assumptions and delusions are two different things. "Misperceptions" is not a mental illness, symptom, or even a word.


misperceptions is not a word according to whom?

i think you may have contracted a misperception...


The English language.


mis·per·ceive (mspr-sv)
tr.v. mis·per·ceived, mis·per·ceiv·ing, mis·per·ceives
To perceive incorrectly; misunderstand.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

misper·ception (-spshn) n.
Source:www.thefreedictionary.com...



Can you read? You looked up "misperception' and provided the result of "mispercieve."

Not only are those two different words, neither of them is an English word. Try again.


here are 577,000 more results from google with hits for the word "misperception" that in your claim you say is not even a word.
www.google.com...


None from a legitimate English dictionary though? How does that happen?

Not sure why the link I am putting in will not work but there are over 1800 google hits for sazzafrazz. Look that up. That make it a word?




why bother to try to discredit photographs when you cannot even agree with society concerning what words you utilize to debunk "most ufo photographs" as The Zomar stated as fact in the op?


[edit on 8-7-2010 by Esoteric Teacher]


Show me a legitimate dictionary definition of "misperception" and I will eat my words.

Until then, I believe this only further shows that you are what this threads seems to be highlighting.

You are wrong. But you want to believe. You want to believe so badly that reality no longer matters.

You made up a word and are wrong about it but you want to believe so you push.


'Misperception is so a word - see here it is...mispercieve see, right there!!!!! Oh, and I found a dictionary that includes typos, spelling errors, and slang to back it up even though real dictionaries are all over the place.'


Do you see how that so perfectly highlights what this OP has brought out that is the decline of the UFO forum? You want to believe so badly that you will confuse two fake words and dig through legit sources until you find a hack one to support you. That is not good.


[edit on 8-7-2010 by K J Gunderson]

[edit on 8-7-2010 by K J Gunderson]



posted on Jul, 8 2010 @ 06:31 PM
link   
Any "real" UFO pix would quickly be quarantined and/ destroyed for public viewing.



posted on Jul, 8 2010 @ 06:33 PM
link   



posted on Jul, 8 2010 @ 06:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by __rich__
Any "real" UFO pix would quickly be quarantined and/ destroyed for public viewing.


What would be the point? Without accompanying evidence, photos are worthless. As far as anyone knows, there have been plenty of real alien/time traveler UFOs photographed, and they're all over the Internet. But who can prove it?

It's much more cost-effective for "them" to just ignore it.



posted on Jul, 8 2010 @ 06:58 PM
link   
Those aren't real photos. I mean actual film, undigitized.

Digital anything is useless as proof. Actual film , while not entirely foolproof, is at least more easily analyzed for trickery.



posted on Jul, 8 2010 @ 07:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by JustMike
The OP is making the point that it's not all that hard to produce something plausible these days, and with skill and a bit of patience the fakes can be very hard to pick. We need to always be aware if that, but also approach such things with a degree of open-mindedness.



I liked your entire post.

it was not directed towards how foolish or how gullible people are.

i do understand the point the OP was trying to make, however one of the points i was/am trying to express is that the intentiionality of the entire reasoning behind the OP was to imply that all pictures of ufos are not to be trusted.

the intentionality behind the OP's presentation, and the evidence he presented is not conclusive proof that most ufo pictures are not to be trusted, however i reserve the right for people to make their own decisions & opinions concerning what evidence they choose to accept, and what evidence they are aware of, as well as what skills and professions they bring to the ATS table to discuss.

the pretenses behind the "why" of it is in my opinion not particularly suitable for the ATS i signed up for over 5 years ago.

calling people names, making false statements in rebuttals, ignoring what has already been presented in the thread, and outright lying does not promote healthy discussions on ATS.

although i may disagree with aspects of your post, at least you demonstrate the capacity to share how you feel and what you know of in the discussion without reducing the quality of the discussion.

thanks & star,
ET



posted on Jul, 8 2010 @ 07:08 PM
link   
Correct me if I'm wrong but...

The OP has brought to our attention that:

1. Convincing UFO photographs are easily faked.

.... and the people who replied to the thread have brought to our attention that:

2. People often don't read to the end of the OP before replying.
3. That ufology in general is likely full of people making stuff up.
4. Ufology is equally full of gullible people who believe the made up stuff without any supporting evidence, critical questioning or thought.

Given they're all bloody obvious to all members with a double digit IQ & an interest in the Aliens & UFO forum, why is the thread still open? It's pointless, surely? Other than identifying some idiots it doesn't seem to serve any purpose... other than pointing out the incredibly obvious.

Isn't the most appropriate place for this the 'Education & Media' forum?


[edit on 8-7-2010 by eightfold]



posted on Jul, 8 2010 @ 07:09 PM
link   
i have several, a lot, of comments to add to this thread but since i don't want to add to the post count of a thread that i feel is a true misrepresentation of what ATS intends to be and what i know it to be, more often than not, i am going to put all i can in one post and hopefully leave it at that.

i read this thread when it was still just one page and decided not to add a reply because i didn't have one related to the initial topic or OP. i think, but don't totally recall, that one of the photos seemed convincing to me and the one with the shadow didn't seem right but i went on to read the rest before spending too much time on why it didn't seem right - i really have no convictions or hopes either way in regard to photo evidence of UFO's, so i didn't get fixated. the stories, however, were very good and if they had been proven at least to be sincere and the truth as was possibly known, i probably would have had more interest in the photos.

as it was, i got to the end of the OP and lost interest in the thread, completely (or nearly, 'cause i'm here now!
).
the reason being that for all practical purposes, the title of the thread IS misleading - to mislead means to cause another to start travel on a fake path. the fake path in this case is the entire first post up until the very last lines.

perhaps if the premise had been one that gave me an a-ha moment with the potential to improve my life or at least my online experience in this forum or others, i could have excused the misleading lead-in.

but it wasn't. DUH! of course people can fake pictures and blah blah blah the points have already been made about this.

that is why i come to ATS - because i expect a certain level of integrity that gives one more freedom in expressing either their skepticism or their credulity toward the types of marginal topics we ATS'ers love to discuss and investigate. i know the value of being skeptical but most people forget that credulousness is just as valuable - either one, to an extreme is just as bad as the other because it prohibits legitimate critical thinking.

i have been fooled a lot by others who like to be creative, let's say, with photographic images and prevalent ideas. i don't mind admitting it. lately i've been trying to look at all threads of this type in order to exercise and hopefully improve my own ability to discern. because truth be told, outside of that, i will be fooled every time!

why?
because i inherently trust that any photo is presented with sincere truth to the best of the poster's ability.
why?
because that is how i roll and i tend to project my own tendencies and ways upon others. that is human nature, we all do it, and there is no denying it.

that's why i am very leery of trusting someone who is extremely suspicious of most everything, especially without reason. the person who suspects others to always be lying or deceitful is deceitful, themselves.

give me a "gullible" person any day of the week - at least i can know my trust is not going to be betrayed for no better reason than opportunity.

above all things, trust is vital in the quest to deny ignorance and find out if things are being held from the public that the public has a right to know.
most of us agree we can't trust the people in charge.
but if we can't trust each other, what the hell do we have?

okay, on to my nitpicking, accumulated from reading umpteen pages of b.s. that obviously i consider more valid than even the OP's initial point of discussion, as proven by the existence of these words i'm typing.


Originally posted by InfaRedMan
I cannot be fooled today! I never jump to any conclusion. Do you?


i try not to, but can't say that i am 100% successful in my attempts, by saying i NEVER do. NEVER and ALWAYS are traps, my friend! traps we set for ourselves and which we will eventually fall victim to, unless we remove those traps. but unless we see the trap, we will not remove it and the odds will catch up to us one day and SNAP, we're trapped!

same way with thinking that you "cannot be fooled today!"
yes, you can! you are fooling yourself right now by saying that you cannot be fooled.

everyone can. any day of the week, any hour, any place. no matter what, we are always susceptible to that because we exist and move in this world. if you are alive, you can be fooled just as easy as the next person. sometimes it's him and sometimes it's you (or me).

-----------------------------------

Originally posted by The_Zomar
I can say that K J Gunderson is probably one of the few that has read all the way through the thread.


nope. i have, too. and a few others have, too.
many have not. it's easy to tell when you've read the whole thread yourself if others have, too.

since you yourself have not read every post on your own thread, as evidenced, below, you can't be sure the above statement is accurate to the best of your knowledge.
and i'm not so sure that i believe K J Gunderson did read the whole thread, because i did, and i really wish i had not done so.

not that it matters, of course, but yet doesn't it?

------------------------------------------

Originally posted by The_Zomar
For the record I didn't read your post. I don't plan on it, either. Its the same mentally lacking ramblings that you have posted over and over.

Face it, your anger from another thread (You know, the same one you wrote a creepy POEM about me on) carried over to this one where you are trying to delude my thread.


how can anyone delude your thread?
delude means: " To deceive the mind or judgment of:"
your thread has no mind or judgment to delude.

------------------------------------------


Originally posted by K J Gunderson
Dude, calm down. Think for a moment. Were there no gullibility, would there be kick to be had by the OP?

Are you defending gullibility on ATS?


i think the issue is not gullibility but the value of credulousness in an environment that is structured toward trustworthiness with higher-than-normal standards for internet forums.
gullibility shouldn't be an issue here, if we all go by the rules of the forum owners!

---------------------------------


Originally posted by InfaRedMan

Originally posted by Esoteric Teacher
one photograph down that i can not prove the photographer is dead, but if we assume he or she had to be at least 5 years old to take the picture, then that would make the photographer 127 years old.





Where's the proof it's a UFO and not just crap on the lense? Or how about a bird? Sorry... no proof of a UFO... just a blury blob.


in the sky.
a blurry blob in the sky, in 1888, fits the true definition of UFO. Unidentified Flying Object. if it were a bird, i doubt it would be subjected to some rather rigorous and up to date scrutiny on www.ufodigest.com.

oh! that's right, you never did click the link provided with the photo, did you?
why did you ask, then?

and then why did you write:


No... This is about photographs! Stick to the criteria! Running out of material after just one photo? Where's the stats I asked for to back up your statement?


you know what?
those are DIVERSIONARY tactics for whatever it is that is obfuscating your view to the point that you are asking someone else to waste their time proving something to you that you'll never concede to, anyway, since it might cause you to back off a little from your attachment to your own opinion.


Originally posted by InfaRedMan
No.. your research skills are questionable. In any case, you are obfuscating. You claimed to be representing a 'fact'; therefore you should have access to said facts and be able to readily supply them to us.


how can you claim something is questionable when you haven't even questioned it?
you have to actually read the research in order to question it.
you were offered a link which you not only did not use, it appears, but that you seem to have either never noticed or else refuse to acknowledge, which is, as you say, obfuscating to the issue at hand.

either way, your behavior is pretty much all that seems questionable, to me -and i've read E.T's threads, many of them. i find him to be honest in all linking to, and reporting of, subject matter sources.

opinions have nothing to do with integrity in investigation or personal interpretation of the findings. i don't think you are aware of that, since you are unaware of even links posted in replies addressed directly to you.

just fyi for the sake of clarity.


(to be continued - i'd rather just donate one page to this chaos, but two is okay, i guess)



posted on Jul, 8 2010 @ 07:10 PM
link   
(continued)


Originally posted by K J Gunderson

...or it really just allowed people to admit they do not really care enough to scrutinize.


no, just a general tendency toward not paying attention as fully as possible. that's something that has been shown repeatedly in this particular thread. if it would do any good, i'm sure someone who is paying attention would try to remedy, by helping to demonstrate this, with verbatim references and explanations.
but since those who are attentive have already realized that this particular thread is beyond help in that area, this thread is truly beyond help as far as receiving its fair share of attention proportional the total amount of replies.

and you aren't paying attention, either! as evidence by this comment:


Show me where the OP called ATSers fools or admit that is a blatant lie.


The_Zomar called black cat a fool, in various forms of the word, 7 times total, starting with post # 9170394. on my screen, 6 of those 7 occurrences happened on one page, page 8, and the last one on the following page.

obviously you didn't read that section of the thread because you would not have missed it!
it was over and over and i found it to be rude, immature, and it took any vestiges of validity away from the OP's initial premise due to disrespect of common courtesy toward a fellow forum member.

that kind of disrespect does not earn my respect at all and i'm probably not going to read any of The_Zomar's threads from now on for TWO reasons, both of which undermine what ATS is supposed to be about.

that's how we maintain standards that we choose for ourselves. either that or we let things go to pot.
no thanks. i like ATS.

---------------------------


Originally posted by The_Zomar
Who said I'm commanding respect?


certainly not me!


anything but.
--------------------------


Originally posted by K J Gunderson

Now he has discredited all UFO pictures? When did that happen? Is there an entire section of this thread I keep missing or do you just keep making things up?


well, since you missed page 8 altogether, it certainly is possible you missed more than that, isn't it?


-------------------


Originally posted by dragonridr
He wasnt calling ATs members a fool looks he was more specifically talking to you.



dragonridr, you addressed the above comment to Esoteric Teacher but it was black cat that The_Zomar undeniably called "fool" AT LEAST 7 times, by my count.

don't tell me you missed all of page 8, too?!

------------------


Originally posted by AlienCarnage
I hope people stop and realize that your intent was not to insult anyone, but to reach those who take “evidence” at face value without really looking at it and scrutinizing it and making sure it passes all terrestrial explanations first.


you are kind to the OP and i see your point but i must also point out that if The_Zomar had maintained a certain level of decorum and not resorted to calling another member a "fool" not once BUT 7 times at least, it would be easier to realize that The_Zomar didn't intend to insult anyone.

one time is excusable in regard to unintentional insults. 7 times pretty much indicates intention in my book.it may not have been the intention of this thread but it definitely was the intention of 7 of the OP's later posts.

therefore, there is a high probability that good intentions are NOT the root cause of this thread justified, also by good intention, for its use of misleading communications in 95% of the entire post, including thread title.

and guess what?
i'm not THAT gullible.
---------------


Originally posted by AlienCarnage
reply to post by Esoteric Teacher
 


In the OT the OP never called anyone fool and you should know very well this is what is being asked of you to prove.


what is the "OT" ?
the old testament? what?
nevermind that.

the OP DID call black cat a fool AT LEAST 7 times that i counted, in reading this thread. if you don't read the whole thread, what do you think justifies you asking someone to prove something that you yourself SHOULD know if you had read the entire thread. is that laziness or total obliviousness to your own responsibilities as a forum member?


You instead provide “proof” where the OP is not calling someone a fool on their belief in UFO’s but for taking the OT out of context or for not reading the OT and thinking his images were real before finding out in fact they were fabricated.


it doesn't matter WHY the OP called another member a fool, at least 7 times. it is rude and unnecessary regardless of any attempt at justification. there is no justification for that. it's just WRONG.


It is a distraction tactic that you are employing to help bring credit to your own posts that can not hold weight on their own.


relatively speaking, Esoteric Teacher's posts in this thread are about the only ones that DO hold water - there a few others and guys, you know who you are.

you are not one of them, AlienCarnage...your making a puddle on the floor even as i write this.


The OP never called anyone a fool in the OT;


Well, if you mean Old Testament, then you are more than likely absolutely correct.
but i suspect that you mean something else by "OT"


can we just stick to the ones we already know, like OP or STFU or LOL?
things are far too distracting as it is.


and i'm outta here.



new topics

top topics



 
56
<< 11  12  13    15  16  17 >>

log in

join