Originally posted by DerepentLEstranger
reply to post by Aloysius the Gaul
Which is why one evaluates the quality of evidence, not merely it's volume.
i just did, look at the data of those pics, also jpegs did not exist back then, uh HELLOOOO!!!. check
Gosh really? I did not realise that.....
But I do think I mentioned things like eye witness statements by flight crews, intercepting fighter pilots, by ground observers as corroborating the
existance of contrails in the 1940's.
The lack of JPEGs back then is just 1 aspect of the quality of the evidence...and a trivial one at that, since it is axiomatic.
How do you know they can't be analysed? Have you checked the originals?
neither you nor anyone claiming those are pictures of contrails have provided the originals check
So that would be a "no" then. Why don't you go get them if you are concerned about their veracity?
I am not going to do so because I am not concerned about their veracity.
You say you ahven't OK - I'll take you at your word on that.......*so in fact you have no evidence of anything.
where did i say that i ahven't ? check
That would be in this post - www.abovetopsecret.com...
- where I said why don't you go check the originals, and
you replied with
why should i ? you and your band bring "evidence" of "contrails" , your evidence is shown to be no good, and i'm supposed to pay for your
"proof", by ordering prints from the supposed originals? you and liejunkie are the ones claiming that those are pictures of "contrails"
Or does that mean you have checked them??
And also jsut above in the post I am replying to wher eyou confirmed that you have not "provided the originals".
*irrational statements do not require a response
Apparently they do......
Because you allege there is a problem with them, and then don't back it up with any evidence - heck - why am I surprised by
probably because you skipped a page or two where i posted 3 screen captures of the files data in xnview
1 of them has been rendered with photoshop 4. check
which is not actually evidence of anything being changed - as was explained to you back then.
No it hasn't - you have asserted, without evidence, that it MIGHT not be good.....and I have provided evidence why I think it is
Where? i may not have seen it. check
Yes you have seen it - the bit where I said there were ample eye witness reports of contrails in WW2, and you complained about there being many false
things recorded in history - same post I linked to above.
Until you can provide some backup for your ASSERTION all it remains is your opinion. If you want to jsutify it then you do so - wand I
dont' give a ritund rodent's rectum whether you pay for whatever it takes or not - that's your choice.
i'm not into jsutifying whatever that is lol use your fingers not your fists when you type, less spelling errors that way.
Hmm...yeah...nice pointless ad hominem in a post that also gives us "jsutifying", "i may not have seen it" (nice capitalisation), "i ahven't "
(capitalisation AND spelling".
if you are going to froth at the mouth there is no point in responding to your irrationality and unreason, anymore.
No problem - I'm not frothing, so I expect ther is still some point in your replying - I look forward to it.
not running away just waiting for you to post something reasonable on this thread for a change.
you are making a fool of yourself and your side just fine by yourself in my opinion.
do you have any facts to back that opinion up with??
edit on 30-3-2011 by Aloysius the Gaul because: (no reason given)