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.
Originally posted by Slipdig1
Maybe if they end up real, as I think its still inconclusive, they will make you look the fool.
Originally posted by m0r1arty
If you think that making a big issue out of this for hits and therefore advertising revenue then I accept that - you are a business afterall.
If you wish for the scrutiny and scepticism of people who can do so with due diligence and decency then I ask for a reprisal of November 2010 policy which saw many members head off to...
...and perhaps apologise to those who have been culled...
Thing is I don't think you are asking a genuine question about how ATS should be but rather make a statement on a popular thread.
Originally posted by gift0fpr0phecy
reply to post by LilDudeissocool
Just to add.... If I "didn't know what I was talking about", then why would Robert Sheaffer support my analysis, and then Space.com support Robert Sheaffer's support of my analysis, and even get mentioned by Discovery.com?
I guess all these websites and people "don't know what they are talking about"?
Where is your work?edit on 9-2-2011 by gift0fpr0phecy because: (no reason given)
Originally posted by gift0fpr0phecy
reply to post by LilDudeissocool
Just to fix your inaccurate statements...
The original debunk of the first video when it came out was that there is parallax issues, and perspective issues. This lead me to believe the background was static, and a composite. Then after finding evidence of motion tiling which is commonly used when adding fake camera shake, this confirmed the parallax and perspective issues. The camera was moving artificially so there was no real parallax, and this messed up the geometry/perspective as well.
I stand by my original conclusion that the parallax and perspective is incorrect, and it is further supported by evidence of fake camera shake and motion tiling.
There is some evidence that the background of video 1 is a static image and Mr. Mask has researched that path further... I am not 100% sure about that anymore, but when this all started it was one of many explanations for the parallax and perspective issues, and can still be and additional factor.
Nobody has proven it wrong to date. There were several amateur attempts, but the person attempting to prove it wrong didn't even understand the original argument and measurements, and didn't understand the issues. Half the points made were irrelevant.
So what do you have?edit on 9-2-2011 by gift0fpr0phecy because: typos
Originally posted by SkepticOverlord
In the scheme of our overall traffic, this topic is less than 1%. Our traffic (and resulting ad revenue) would be healthy without it, and likely unaltered by this idea.
Originally posted by SkepticOverlord
I wouldn't call it "many," perhaps a handful at best. But I have no idea what policy you're referring to. We've always embraced a healthy balance and promoted active invalidation of UFO sightings when needed.
Originally posted by SkepticOverlord
MISQUOTE BY M0R1ARTY - but still who's perfect? - it's my reply to SO's reply!
Originally posted by m0r1arty
Originally posted by Slipdig1
Maybe if they end up real, as I think its still inconclusive, they will make you look the fool.
I look forward to that day.
I just hope you understand until that day that you look the fool.
-m0r
Originally posted by m0r1arty
Jesus man I hate having to do this.
It does not take a reasoned mind much to see the attitude towards reasonable and decent sceptics here on ATS within the middle of November 2010 and December 2010...
...for no other reason that an attack on scepticism from the administration and moderation of ATS...
However bypassing some attributes of your delivery system does make you look foolish and whether or not you are reflective to see that is irrelevant.
it's also the same passion you had when you joined this team or when Simon and Springer started it.