One my fav blogs had a writeup on him but i must admit i didnt know much about him.
http://copycateffect.blogspot.com/ |
Or thats what the Illuminati would want you to believe.
|
Faceman you seen obama deception yet? f**ken bilderberg group.
anyways sad news...dont know who he is LOL |
seeing as how someone mentioned UFOs i thought you might be interested in this recent UFO. Watch closely at 4:38
hard to explain that. |
hard to explain that. It's hard to explain why the narrator/filmer/uploader would draw the conclusion that the sphere is intelligent. Doesn't look too intelligent to me. |
looks like a bunch of birds to me, with a retarded camera Yeah, they always zoom right the hell into digital zoom and not use a tripod, pretty sure they do it on purpose so it shows it as something that *might* look like a lot of things instead of looking like the normal explainable thing it does look like. |
typical mind manipulation trick.. telling people what it is before they see it.. that way they are more inclined to believe its what they said it was..
if you just showed the footage.. i would say it was some birds fighting |
I didn't watch the video but I'm betting the picture is either fuzzy/shakey/out of focus - just like all ufo footage
|
So no explanations ? You didn't read the posts saying it was birds? |
Always remember: Separate pieces of poor evidence don't aggregate together into a single piece of good evidence. You can stack cowpies as high as you want, but they won't turn into a bar of gold. -Brian Dunning, www.skeptoid.com |
I'm sure there is some good evidence that suprisingly hasn't managed to find its way to ausforums..
|
i'm sure it's no more credible or useful than anything else we've had posted on here
last edited by paveway at 13:29:22 08/Jul/09 |
I'm sure there is some good evidence that suprisingly hasn't managed to find its way to ausforums.. Wait a second - the burden of proof isn't on us ("us" being the disbelievers). The burden of proof is on the person making a claim. In this case, the burden of proof is on Faceman, and him simply saying "you can't give me an alternative explanation" isn't proof. The only evidence he has is a s***** video where you can't see what the hell is going on. |
I'm interested in hearing what the alternative to providing faceman with an explanation is. Like, if the 50 or so people who read this thread can't provide an explanation, what must we be looking at here?
|
Could you please also tell me what is going on in this fMRI below (what is driving the difference between the control and the conductors?):
http://www.uncg.edu/mus/mri/neuromusical_clip_image004.gif Assuming that not many people in this thread can accurately explain this data, is it safe for me to assume the answer is aliens? Did aliens cause this difference? The answer is, no. Just because there isn't an apparent explanation that a lot of people are aware of, it doesn't mean there is not a completely rational explanation for something. I apologise for the double negative, so to clarify, I'll reiterate the point I already made. The burden of proof is on the person making a claim. So far there isn't enough proof that we can conclude it's anything special (further beyond no one being able to explain what it is). I'm interested in hearing what the alternative to providing faceman with an explanation is. Like, if the 50 or so people who read this thread can't provide an explanation, what must we be looking at here? Let's use some critical thinking skills and assume that we are hypothesis testing. We can have 2 options: 1, the null hypothesis, the video isn't a UFO; and 2, the alternative hypothesis, the video IS a UFO. What we need to do is gather evidence to REJECT THE NULL. We always assume there isn't something, until we see proof that there is. So, do we have enough evidence to reject the null? Well what we have is a shoddy video of something that no one here can label. Just because we can't label what is going on in the video does not constitute evidence to reject the null. Evidence to reject the null would be a video that is a complete, clear and unambiguous. For example, where is the end of the video? What happens to the yellow object? Does it fly away? Does it land? Surely if someone with a camera thought they saw a UFO they would record it until it disappeared... right? I certainly wouldn't stop after 1 minute and say, "Well hey, that's enough crappy footage to convince the harshest skeptic!" Once again, just because there isn't yet an obvious answer, doesn't mean we should jump to the most fantastic conclusion. last edited by BillyHardball at 17:50:59 08/Jul/09 |
Unidentified
Flying Object Nobody can offer up an alternative explanation which makes it a UFO. |
ahaha but it just looks like some birds digitally zoomed really far in on a really s***** shakey camera. it's hardly unidentified.
|
it's unidentified because it's taken by a drunken hillbilly cameraphone
|
I’m sure there’s a 1000's of ways i could shoot a video so you don’t know what it is
For example i screw up some foil and throw it in the air with 1 hand and zoom in and film it in the other.. Just cause you don’t know what i threw doesn’t make it a alien craft or UFO in this case it can’t be identified.. it’s not that it unidentifiable.. give me a better pic and i'll identify it for you |
Came across this doco, pretty recent (november 2008).
Ft. Dan Aykroyd Theres 10 parts, good watch if you have time :> *edit* no birds in this vid. last edited by JakeG at 21:09:36 08/Jul/09 |
ahahaha the dude in that doco is David Serada, author of such academically robust books as:
Mona Lisa's Little Secret how can you retards buy into this s*** when a quick google search shows the guys is clearly a kook manipulating other kooks by pretending to know s*** in order to sell s***** books/DVDs? source: http://www.lulu.com/davidsereda |