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.

 

[HOAX]saw flying metallic disk in nashville... WITH PICS... and now my dog is sick[HOAX]

page: 42
74
<< 39  40  41    43  44  45 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 13 2012 @ 09:47 PM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 




posted on Apr, 13 2012 @ 09:49 PM
link   
The guy was hurt, like I warned him he would be if he wasn't careful.
I also warned him to not get baited and only respond if someone had
something that would be useful or help him or something to that effect.
I'm not saying he listened cause I said something, but he might have come to the same
conclusion on his own.

His response about snip ATS is a natural response from somebody that feels hurt.

This is my last post on this thread so I will say one last time. I was a counselor for 10yrs at a
maximum security treatment center for sexual predators, psychopaths, and sociopaths. (professional liars)
I spent hours and hours and hours learning how to tell fact from fiction and everything in between.
I explained that I believe him and not that the pictures were ET or something magical.
This guy, Rickey, does not show the personality traits of a hoaxer. He sounded like an excited young adult
with a huge heart that saw something that gave him a chance to contribute to ATS, a site he enjoyed.
You nasty mean spirited people crushed him, like I posted you would.

For the all knowing Admin.......You know darn well that we have seen hoaxes much lamer than this...many many times.....this does not rise to the level of being obvious.......He certainly could have been lying for attention......I would be a millionaire or the Mentalist if I could never be fooled. But I never read a thing in his posts that would suggest he was hoaxing.......I don't care about the photos.....some kid next door could have thrown a frisbee or flying some Walmart toy helicopter.
This kid liked, and wanted to be a part of ATS and thought he had something cool to share.
....and as you probably could check and find out.....I have never had any contact with him, nor think he even responded to any of my posts.
This is your site, you ban who you want, and I respect that.
I don't respect being directed to an ADMIN supported post that included such a blatant edited biased non truth.
Res Ipsa out.



posted on Apr, 13 2012 @ 09:54 PM
link   

Originally posted by SkepticOverlord
Why isn't everyone able to obviously see the very clear visual indications within the photos themselves that SCREAM hoax?

The link added to the opening post merely establishes that the thread author's story doesn't jive with the embedded information within the photos. Combining that with the clearly laughable attempt represented by the photos... and it's a pitiful hoax.

Seriously people... why so much consternation over one of the worst hoax attempts we've seen on ATS?


I use my iphone to map routes for work and I can't begin to tell you how much of a nightmare it was in Montreal. The thing is never accurate, getting me more lost at times than if I had bought a French map. It's not 100% accurate and yet for some strange reason, in this case, it is?

Do you own an iphone? Then you know that damn GPS blue dot can be off. It has delays, shows you to be on the wrong street when you are on the right street. Frustrating experience. If you don't own one then you don't know the hell it can cause when you're in traffic. If you do own one then you understand what I'm talking about. None of you should be basing this on that damn GPS info.

I also want to add, which is it? Clear indication of a faked image or a clear indication of wrong GPS data? You can't have it both ways. I'm not being confrontational Overlord, but I can't see the logic here and understand why you are not addressing this obvious contradiction in your analysis. I would appreciate an reply. Thanks

edit on 13-4-2012 by FlySolo because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 13 2012 @ 10:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by webpirate

Object 2 and 3 are one second apart in time, and have the exact same altitude, and GPS coordinates. Object 1, is
20 seconds LATER than 2 and 3 are, is 1 meter higher in elevation, and the GPS lat and long are slightly different.
This is in direct contrast to what the OP posted in this post here.



ALL you have proven is that the iphone is not accurate. Why don't you just say what you think instead of baiting the skeptics. If the GPS data is correct then he must have jumped in the air one meter and stepped to the left. Big friggin deal. You did all that work for nothing.



posted on Apr, 13 2012 @ 10:11 PM
link   
post removed for serious violation of ATS Terms & Conditions



posted on Apr, 13 2012 @ 10:19 PM
link   
reply to post by Human_Alien
 


What is going on here? My days are numbered too on here as well.


You've spent a lot of time and energy on this thread...If you had good point, and you did early on, it's been watered down due to your own rhetoric...


You'd be better off if you just stfu, but since that won't happen, can you please come up with some new material..?





posted on Apr, 13 2012 @ 10:32 PM
link   
I don't believe it was a mistaken identity of a shiny frisbee or a Walmart toy, either. Here's why. The average human has binocular vision to a distance of 712 feet/ 217 meters with the unaided eye. Some a bit more, some a bit less. The communications tower is only 152 meters/ 500 feet away. The object is obviously much closer than that, shown by the lack of haze and atmospheric blueing in front of it, as compared to the tower.

Depth cues for distance come from several sources, but those two and line of sight occultation are the main 3. Unless there is some plausible reason that all 3 of those, and especially the first two, are deficient in the OP, he had to have known that the object was closer.

I can't quite buy a mistake of distance in broad daylight as this sighting was, unless a plausible reason for it in the face of those factors can be set forth.

Then there is the discrepancy between the OP's statement that the sighting took place "a little after 4 pm", and the internal evidence in the photo itself that it was taken at 13:41, evident from the time stamp in the EXIF data and supported by the illumination angle in the photos themselves.

Until that can all be explained away, I am forced to conclude it was a deliberate attempt, not a mistaken identity.

Now, True Believers are going to believe, regardless of contrary evidence that can't be explained away. I can't. I am convinced that UFOs are a real phenomena, and I am equally convinced that willful hoaxes waste time and effort, and harm the search for the truth. Truth will never be discovered by True Believers - it will only be uncovered by those who demand answers to the hard questions.



posted on Apr, 13 2012 @ 10:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by FlySolo

Originally posted by SkepticOverlord
Why isn't everyone able to obviously see the very clear visual indications within the photos themselves that SCREAM hoax?

The link added to the opening post merely establishes that the thread author's story doesn't jive with the embedded information within the photos. Combining that with the clearly laughable attempt represented by the photos... and it's a pitiful hoax.

Seriously people... why so much consternation over one of the worst hoax attempts we've seen on ATS?


I use my iphone to map routes for work and I can't begin to tell you how much of a nightmare it was in Montreal. The thing is never accurate, getting me more lost at times than if I had bought a French map. It's not 100% accurate and yet for some strange reason, in this case, it is?


No one has said it was "100% accurate". It wasn't. It was around 20m off, south by southwest, "walking" to the east. had it been as far off as your defense asserts, we would never have been able to find the site at all. We did find the site, the precise site, as shown in the photos. All of the landmarks are there - the buildings, their orientation, the communications tower, even the tree in the photo. The fact that the site was found within 20 meters of the coordinates given supports a correct identification.



posted on Apr, 13 2012 @ 10:47 PM
link   




Great. Then what's the problem? Why the big deal about the cords? I mean, shouldn't it be a non-issue?
edit on 13-4-2012 by FlySolo because: (no reason given)


Sigh, another edit...
And 4 o'clock vs. 1 o'clock doesn't prove hoax either. You have to put yourself in the mindset of a hoaxer. Even if it was overlooked, you're/we're/they're just arguing about minor details
edit on 13-4-2012 by FlySolo because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 13 2012 @ 10:48 PM
link   
reply to post by nenothtu
 


For me this is not about belief, it's about a sane and courteous discussion that was not allowed to happen because so many jumped on the debunking bandwagon before questions to the OP could be asked and answered, and he left disgusted, which I don't blame him for. It was ugly and uncalled for. I'm not convinced beyond any doubt by the photographic analysis or the iphone time stamp crap...too bad it had to go this way. I liked Ricky.

I also like the dog.



posted on Apr, 13 2012 @ 11:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by FlySolo


Great. Then what's the problem? Why the big deal about the cords? I mean, shouldn't it be a non-issue?
edit on 13-4-2012 by FlySolo because: (no reason given)


I don't know why it's an issue, or why the defense side keeps bringing them up. They were only used to locate the approximate area, not in the analysis. Once the area was found, a more precise position for the photographer was determined using the landmarks in that area.



posted on Apr, 13 2012 @ 11:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by nenothtu

Originally posted by FlySolo


Great. Then what's the problem? Why the big deal about the cords? I mean, shouldn't it be a non-issue?
edit on 13-4-2012 by FlySolo because: (no reason given)


I don't know why it's an issue, or why the defense side keeps bringing them up. They were only used to locate the approximate area, not in the analysis. Once the area was found, a more precise position for the photographer was determined using the landmarks in that area.





Well, the site owner brought it up with his announcement directing everyone to this comment:



And here are excerpts from the EXIF data to back up what I said about him moving. Object 1 Date/Time 2012:04:11 13:41:36 GPS Altitude 201 metres GPS Latitude 36"7'45.6 GPS Longitude 86"47'33.6 Object 2 Date/Time 2012:04:11 13:41:16 GPS Altitude 202 metres GPS Latitude 36"7'45.6 GPS Longitude 86"47'34.2 Object 3 Date/Time 2012:04:11 13:41:15 GPS Altitude 202 metres GPS Latitude 36"7'45.6 GPS Longitude 86"47'34.2


He moved and the altitude was a meter higher.It's a non-issue. This wasn't the defense side talking either. This is the opponents argument.



posted on Apr, 13 2012 @ 11:13 PM
link   
reply to post by Pilot
 


Oh, no doubt it could have been handled more civilly, but you know that bringing red meat to ATS of that nature is going to attract sharks. Anyone doing so - especially anyone who has been here for any amount of time, really ought to know to expect that, and be prepared to field it.

I have to disagree with the people taking the mods to task for simply voicing an opinion. As far as I'm concerned, those people are no less shark-like than the ones they decry in their angry defensive rants. Anger knows no ideology, and neither side is immune to it's detrimental effects which lead to unreasoning. Anger and rationality have an inverse relationship, no matter who is venting it, or which side of the debate they stand on.

No mod "led the charge" - they simply voiced an opinion, and if folks wanted to go charging off on a word, that's on them. Now it's become nearly a free-for all, with people up in arms over ATS policy that has long been in place, and which they agreed to before they joined, and far less concerned with the story as presented, or any actual evidence presented by either side.

If they want to howl about ATS policy, and bury the story under those howls, more power to them. Perhaps it ought to be buried, any how, as a hoax gone horribly wrong.




edit on 2012/4/13 by nenothtu because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 13 2012 @ 11:18 PM
link   

Originally posted by FlySolo


Well, the site owner brought it up with his announcement directing everyone to this comment:



And here are excerpts from the EXIF data to back up what I said about him moving. Object 1 Date/Time 2012:04:11 13:41:36 GPS Altitude 201 metres GPS Latitude 36"7'45.6 GPS Longitude 86"47'33.6 Object 2 Date/Time 2012:04:11 13:41:16 GPS Altitude 202 metres GPS Latitude 36"7'45.6 GPS Longitude 86"47'34.2 Object 3 Date/Time 2012:04:11 13:41:15 GPS Altitude 202 metres GPS Latitude 36"7'45.6 GPS Longitude 86"47'34.2


He moved and the altitude was a meter higher.It's a non-issue. This wasn't the defense side talking either. This is the opponents argument.


Wasn't that post a lot earlier in the thread? I'm not sure, because I'm way past it - not quite sure why other folks aren't. Is that the only thing the post had to say? If not, why are people dwelling on that one specific non-issue as if it were a life preserver for a bad story?

Why aren't they bringing up any of the other points made?



posted on Apr, 13 2012 @ 11:20 PM
link   
reply to post by nenothtu
 


Have you looked at the top of page one recently? Skeptic Overlord has made it an issue.



posted on Apr, 13 2012 @ 11:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by nenothtu
reply to post by Pilot
 


Oh, no doubt it could have been handled more civilly, but you know that bringing red meat to ATS of that nature is going to attract sharks. Anyone doing so - especially anyone who has been here for any amount of time, really ought to know to expect that, and be prepared to field it.

I have to disagree with the people taking the mods to task for simply voicing an opinion. As far as I'm concerned, those people are no less shark-like than the ones they decry in their angry defensive rants. Anger knows no ideology, and neither side is immune to it's detrimental effects which lead to unreasoning. Anger and rationalioty have an inverse relationship, no matter who is venting it, or which side of the debate they stand on.

No mod "led the charge" - they simply voiced an opinion, and if folks wanted to go charging off on a word, that's on them. Now it's become nearly a free-for all, with people up in arms over ATS policy that has long been in place, and which they agreed to before they joined, and far less concerned with the story as presented, or any actual evidence presented by either side.

If they want to howl about ATS policy, and bury the story under those howls, more power to them. Perhaps it ought to be buried, any how, as a hoax gone horribly wrong.



A hoax gone horribly wrong?? What do you mean by that? That sounds so dramatic-for what-it's just a lil' ol UFO thread on ATS

Horribly wrong because the debunkers didn't carry the day? The damn thing won't die??? What?



posted on Apr, 13 2012 @ 11:39 PM
link   

Originally posted by Pilot

A hoax gone horribly wrong?? What do you mean by that? That sounds so dramatic-for what-it's just a lil' ol UFO thread on ATS

Horribly wrong because the debunkers didn't carry the day? The damn thing won't die??? What?


No, not the hoax itself - that was just sort of run of the mill, and fairly easily laid to rest. The "horribly wrong" part was the disproportionate controversy surrounding - but not even touching - it.

Debunkers can never carry the day, any more than True Believers. They can only present their analysis for people to read and make up their own minds. The only way they can "carry the day" is by extracting a confession, which rarely ever happens. other than that, it's just a matter of who presents the most convincing evidence, and that is subjective, to be determined for each reader on their own after examining it.

What we have is people ignoring the story altogether now, and the evidence from both sides, and instead launching into defensive tirades aimed at people rather than the evidence - either for or against.



posted on Apr, 13 2012 @ 11:42 PM
link   
reply to post by nenothtu
 


What is the evidence? That's why this thread isn't dead. Not the GPS, not the order in which he named the pics, and not a faked picture because the consensus is a tossed disc. What is the evidence?



posted on Apr, 13 2012 @ 11:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by FlySolo
reply to post by nenothtu
 


What is the evidence? That's why this thread isn't dead. Not the GPS, not the order in which he named the pics, and not a faked picture because the consensus is a tossed disc. What is the evidence?


Good lord! have you not read the thread? Do you expect me to go back through 42 pages of mostly bickering and draw it all together into a single post?

If you read the the thread and the evidence and dismissed it, only to seize on a GPS co-ordinate argument as the easiest avenue of attack, what is to lead me to expect that you will read it the second time if I gather it all together and re-post it?



posted on Apr, 13 2012 @ 11:57 PM
link   
reply to post by nenothtu
 


Admittedly, I have not read the thread in it's entirety. But being a member here for 5 years I know about all the rhetoric that happens in the middle. But yes, since the owner has made his announcement directing everyone to the comments I quoted (and then some) it appears to be the only evidence provided.

I did read your comments however, in the last few pages regarding the hue of an object making it appear to be closer than the tower. But you didn't ban the member and your reasons came after the verdict was read. So, in reality, page 1 is what counts. I've asked him to come back and clarify but I am being ignored. So that leaves just me and you mate

edit on 13-4-2012 by FlySolo because: (no reason given)



new topics

top topics



 
74
<< 39  40  41    43  44  45 >>

log in

join