Never before seen UFO photos - Debunkers?

Alright, as I am a master debator (pun, I don't really believe that I am "awesome" or something.) I will state this:

I feel quite certain, (78.9% sure) that the OP made this thread with the intent of "tricking the gullible". NOW

This "intent" may not be the sole purpose of the thread, or even a greater part of the purpose. But it is PART OF THE PURPOSE. And I feel that this type of behavior is bringing ATS down.

Now:

Originally posted by spacekc929
Yeah, it was like that in the beginning...

In reference to the "size" and "font" of the disclaimer in the OP.

You are correct! I am mistaken on this point. I have read the OP (not stories) at least 10 times by now, and I based my stance on this post

I have been bested by my human nature! I apologize to the OP, for this mistake alone.

Lastly, one mistake does not discount my entire stance...

First off, I got the definition of 'false' from the Merriam-Webster's dictionary. So no, it's not a false statement. It's merely a different definition, which, I think, deserves just as much credit.

Here is the Mirriam Webster definition...

Main Entry: 1false
Pronunciation: \ˈfȯls\
Function: adjective
Inflected Form(s): fals·er; fals·est
Etymology: Middle English fals, faus, from Anglo-French & Latin; Anglo-French, from Latin falsus, from past participle of fallere to deceive
Date: 12th century

1 : not genuine

Where are your words? Oh I see them here UNDER 2b:

2 a : intentionally untrue b : adjusted or made so as to deceive c : intended or tending to mislead

ANOTHER false statement.

And now you are "cherry picking" definitions to suit you? What is 2A???

2 a : intentionally untrue

www.merriam-webster.com...

The rest of your post is filled with these attempts at semantics at well.

I think I have shown enough (again) to prove my stance.

Since you guys can't read one sentence at a time, apparently, here is the EXACT PART YOU BROKE.

You will not post any material that is knowingly false, ..., or ...

You will not post any material that is knowingly ..., ..., or inaccurate.

See that?

Now, those pictures. Are those real, or false?

ARE THE PICTURES REAL OR FALSE?????

Is that SO hard to answer?

EDIT (To fix: )
semantis to semantics
BB Code

EDIT (To explain)
The Mirriam Webster quotes have brackets around their "examples" this is why all the F's are missing from false. Also why I don't use them for quoting definitions

[edit on 7/13/2010 by adigregorio]

[edit on 7/13/2010 by adigregorio]

reply to post by The_Zomar


files.abovetopsecret.com...

Looks like the flat saucer photographed by Rex Heflin.
See youtube for the UFO Hunters episode.

See it you can see the dirt underneath lifting up as Tesla
said his craft would be lifted up by a 'rope' which he ment
his electrical ether force.

reply to post by TeslaandLyne


I give up

This is what a second line looks like.

This is what a third line would look like, if I had typed it.

Originally posted by adigregorio
reply to post by TeslaandLyne

 

I give up

This is what a second line looks like.

This is what a third line would look like, if I had typed it.

reply to post by The_Zomar


Ha!

You know OP I don't think I ever said "You're right!"

Regardless of my stance around these parts, the OP is most assuredly right.

Que-sera-sera

2nd photo is photoshopped i can tell from seeing a lot of shops in my time.
am i doing it right

Some of the worst photoshopping ever. Don't give up the day job OP.

Originally posted by Manolete
Some of the worst photoshopping ever. Don't give up the day job OP.

And in spite of that we still get comments in this thread like "Those pictures sure fooled me."

Apparently, accurately photoshopped photos are not required to fool everyone, only the more discriminating.

And I think the OP may have done some intentionally sloppy photoshopping, judging by the compliments he gave when people pointed out the 'shopping flaws:

Originally posted by The_Zomar

Originally posted by ChicUFO
I thought the third one was fake as soon as I saw it The UFOs shadow doesn't match the shadow angle in the rocks. Also, the reflection in the water is below the reflection of the tree, it should have been closer to the camera.

Nice!

Oh man, wow. I read this entire thread. Well, at around page 15 I just started skimming. To be honest, around the middle I stopped having a full grasp on what was being argued about. At one point it go into a semantic debate and...I think the basics of it after a point was "here's why I think the OP is a jerk"/"here's why I don't think the OP is a jerk." At any rate, I feel the need to comment on it because I spent so much time reading it.

First off, the OP seemed to be relatively modest in his attempt. As far as I can see, he wasn't looking for respect, attention or to be seen as a golden god that damns the easily mislead. He was trying to make a point, one that may have been made before, but most points have.

As it went on, it seemed those constantly arguing against him were trying to become respected and revered themselves. They seemed to obsessively feel some need to protect some group like internet-age Tom Joads. I'm not saying that is how it is, I'm just saying how it seemed to me.

Let's also keep in mind that gullibility is not a positive trait. Should the gullible be picked on? No, but that doesn't mean they should be crusaded for. On a site dealing in the matters that ATS does the gullible are just as dangerous as those that look to bilk them.

Now, the OP, while he had a good intent, did create photos that very well could make their way out into the world and be heralded as real by some unknowing person. That's not so good. In retrospect, the main goal probably should've been "Hey, look how many people don't fully read a post" rather than "Hey, look how easily UFO photos can be faked." I think everyone would agree that's a good lesson and it might have still raised hell, but not in the manner it has. Also, it would've been aimed at believers and skeptics as we saw both of them take the bait in this thread.

My favorite part of this thread was the people who claimed that the OP wasted their time. It wasted...maybe five minutes of their time on a message board, which is usually something you go on when you don't have anything pressing to do. No one was trying to defuse a bomb, saw this post and said, "WHAT? NEW PHOTOS?" What was better was when some of the folks who said their time was wasted continued to waste their time on this thread.

Which brings me to my last point. Everyone is entitled to their opinion and reaction to this thread, but going on and on about how low-down and dirty it was doesn't help or hurt anyone. There was no debate on whether it was real or not, because we were told they weren't. No rules were broken because the mods took no action. In real life, an injustice (real or imagined) requires attention, it's the only way a resolution can be worked toward. On the internet, everything feeds on attention. You can't kill something like this by continually going back to it and trying to make your point stick. If anything, those fighting against it made it worse by making the thread grow because it'll attract more attention.

Again, I'm not saying those upset by the thread are wrong, I'm just saying that in the future maybe don't fight so hard, not only is it counter-productive but it devolves into arguments that have nothing to do with the merits of the OP. Also, I'm not saying never to dissent or agree fervently, just to say your piece and leave it be. At least in a case like this.

Now, that said...CAN YOU BELIEVE THESE INCREDIBLE NEW PICS? Finally, PROOF!



[edit on 7/31/2010 by SaulGoodman]

Strange thing is most UFO picutres are like this. Does that mean that EVERY UFO picture is a fake and hoax?

reply to post by The_Zomar



Greetings Earthlings, Assorted Visitors and The_Zomar:

Great thread! I would like to add this one that was suppressed by the White House...no wonder.







In Peace & Light
tfw