debunking UFO theories

[Lemonvariable72]

I've also noted your typical 'woo' will not criticize another 'woo' no matter how conflicting and contradictory their POVs are.

If there is a mutilated cow found, and one 'woo' declares definitively that it was a chupacabra attack, and another says it is obviously another attack from the Voltones from Alpha Upsilon 18, neither 'woo' will criticize the other for being wrong, but both will agree anyone else pointing out it was coyotes (again) is part of a government conspiracy to hush up the mutilation.

Additionally, I think a corollary exists in the religion orbit, Southern Baptists and Mormons will ignore their mutual belief the other is going to burn in the bowels of Hell if there is an Atheist around to criticize.

Forget mutilated cows whose injuries are not yet fully explainied - What about crop circles? Even after the perpetrators of the hoaxes (crop circles) have owned up and shown how it was done, the UFO nutters still want to blame it on aliens!

As Carl Sagan said: Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof.

The thing that keeps the crop circle thing going is that there a significant difference between the hoax circles and the ones they consider genuine. You see the hoaxed ones are done with some rope and a board, and a couple people working a night or two and can make some amazing patterns. Now the cases that most of theorists (at least the less nutty ones) consider to be more legitimate do not exhibit the characteristic breaking of the stalk that comes from being stomped on with a board. Instead the stalks are bent usually with small perferations along the bend that are thought to be caused by super heated water. We know from experiments that wheat and corn stalks exposed to intense microwaves are strikingly similar to those found in some circles.
No let me make this clear, I do not presume any knowledge of why or who when it comes to corp circles. My only position is that some of these occcurance are genuine and should be studied using the scientific method. Without preconceptions.

[CharnelRC]

Anyway, my video is censored by an admin so I guess I'll have to blabla before posting anything meaningful here.

"Censored"!

From my experience, the more people laugh, the less they know.
How would you call it smarty pants?

Apparently someone hasn't read the rules.

No one reads the forum rules, unless you're stoned or mentally challenged
I suggest you pick the stone

I love it when they give a full confession

It's called request, and so far you're not doing your job

---

Alright, your house, your rules.

Should you stick around and become a regular member, you'll find that we're not near as rigid as you may currently think. With exception to porn and physical threats, there is very little censorship here.

That's cool. I tend to spend time on forums, though I would also like to post more than txt. Moderators can easily distinguish a spammer from a potential member, with some thought...

...but who has time, who has time

---

We don't mind if people do that - if they're actually interested in being part of this community.

"We don't mind" but we'll crush the posts of newcomers regardless of their interests :]

I understand pixel smashing can be tempting, but I still want to post videos...

[Ben Davis]

We don't mind if people do that - if they're actually interested in being part of this community.

"We don't mind" but we'll crush the posts of newcomers regardless of their interests :]

I understand pixel smashing can be tempting, but I still want to post videos...

Rules are rules.

And if we didn't have rules, where would we be? France.
And if we had too many rules? That's right, Germany.

Pub Landlord rules!

[CharnelRC]

Rules are rules.

And if we didn't have rules, where would we be? France.
And if we had too many rules? That's right, Germany.

Pub Landlord rules!

hm, y, I'll return to this thread when it's legal...
...seems like it's not getting locked anyway

[Esquilax]

hm, y, I'll return to this thread when it's legal...
...seems like it's not getting locked anyway

You could always type your thoughts like a normal person.

No one reads the forum rules, unless you're stoned or mentally challenged
I suggest you pick the stone

Broad generalizations aside, I'd say there's your problem: if you won't read the rules then you kind of give up your legitimacy where complaints about them are concerned.

[Ben Davis]

hm, y, I'll return to this thread when it's legal...
...seems like it's not getting locked anyway

You de-kudoed me!

[CharnelRC]

Broad generalizations aside, I'd say there's your problem: if you won't read the rules then you kind of give up your legitimacy where complaints about them are concerned.

Don't mind the rule, but approach. Ofc every forum has a rule against spamming, but we could also use human judgement before deciding what's spam and what's not.

I didn't post for advertising, if I did I wouldn't waste my time debating here. I'm interested in debunking nuts like these UFO clowns who claim Phobos on Sol613 images is a UFO. Funny thing is that great majority of youtubers easily believe these nuts. If only they were presented with facts in a simple and appealing way. I think those clowns would soon have to retire back to circuses.

It doesn't take a genius to realize how fake and unfounded all their theories are. Of course, most people are not astrophysicists to understand these facts by themselves and in result easily accept the flying object to be UFO over Phobos. Most of these people however, despite being so easily tricked, are intelligent individuals who will gladly accept facts if they are presented to them in a way they can understand.

Take the "fake moon landing" arguments for example, like a "waving flag". Every astrophysicist knows it's caused by a secondary motion under the law of inertia. This however means nothing to a psychologist or a lawyer, so they'll usually tell you that you're full of @#$%. So I was thinking for some time about simplifying these terms and facts in such a way that a non-astrophysicist can clearly understand. Sometimes it seems quite impossible to do, but I'm more optimistic.

So anyway, thanks for replying. Most moderators wouldn't give a damn.

[Jackalope]

Don't mind the rule, but approach. Ofc every forum has a rule against spamming, but we could also use human judgement before deciding what's spam and what's not.

I didn't post for advertising, if I did I wouldn't waste my time debating here.

Do you have any idea how frequently we get hit-and-run first-post videos posted here, in what is intended to be a forum for discussion?

We don't care if someone's advertising, nor do we want to resort to reading tea leaves to determine if a first-post video poster intends on sticking around or not. The rule is not there to address advertising only - it's also intended to address members, who for whatever reason, are not here to participate in discussion (the purpose of these forums), but for their own purposes. For all we know, with a first post like that, the intent could be to boost one's youtube channel pageview count, and it is not our intent to allow our forum to be abused in that way.

What of the approach? A moderator spotted a violation and moderated the post. It's not like you were handed a warning or anything like that. The wording of the moderator message could have been more precise, perhaps. I don't see that as a big issue. The moderator team didn't make a big deal out of it, and I fail to see why anyone else should.

[CharnelRC]

We don't care if someone's advertising, nor do we want to resort to reading tea leaves to determine if a first-post video poster intends on sticking around or not.//

//For all we know, with a first post like that, the intent could be to boost one's youtube channel pageview count, and it is not our intent to allow our forum to be abused in that way.

If that's true, then you don't need moderators, you can use bots instead.

[Cyberman]

"Censored"!

From my experience, the more people laugh, the less they know.

I get the impression you have a lot of experience of people laughing.

Apparently someone hasn't read the rules.

No one reads the forum rules, unless you're stoned or mentally challenged
I suggest you pick the stone

I think we've found the root of your problem. If you'd said something like "oops, I didn't read the rules so I didn't realise I was doing anything wrong", we wouldn't now be having this discussion. You chose to cast the 'censorship' stone.

I suggest you acquaint yourself with our rules very quickly.

I love it when they give a full confession

It's called request, and so far you're not doing your job

I was talking about the "without the video this thread is pointless" bit. And I am indeed doing my job - I considered your request.