Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[onthefence]

How often do people lie, and for what reasons?

It appears that Chad could have lied when he said "I live in Bakersfield", when in fact the photo location was determined to be hundreds of miles away from that city. Did he have a reason to lie, we will never know his reasons for sure unless we can talk to him.

Does lying make you a bad person who can never be trusted and should rot in hell? Can everyone on these forums prove that they have never lied, and therefore be trusted. What about logging in with an alias instead of your real name? What about making your alias appear to be the opposite gender for purposes of looking like someone who you are not?

I am proposing that because Chad appeared to lie about the location, does not mean that the entire case is garbage. That sort of logic is illogical. When something is proven, then it will be proven.

From this neat summary of How often do we lie to others?.
  "Most people lie to others once or twice a day and deceive about 30 people per week."

About statistics: It has been brought up many times before, I will say it again. Statistics is NOT proof! Just because the majority of people may be of the opinion that the drones are a hoax does not prove that the drones are a hoax. I.E. 10/10 hoax-believers say the drones are a hoax! What does that prove?

As well, regarding logic, the kind that is TRUE/FALSE; if someone cannot do something, then that does not prove that something cannot be done. The shadow anomalies in PICT16 appear to be the strongest lead to the drones being fake, yet it is still not logically proven FALSE just because someone cannot replicate that image.

Again, I appear to be propping up the drone story, when in fact I am just trying to point out that some hoax-believer sites have purposefully set out to use statistics instead of logic. They may turn out to be right in the end, but at this point, I think it is at best just an "educated" guess.

[EVS]

How often do people lie, and for what reasons?

It appears that Chad could have lied when he said "I live in Bakersfield", when in fact the photo location was determined to be hundreds of miles away from that city. Did he have a reason to lie, we will never know his reasons for sure unless we can talk to him.

Does lying make you a bad person who can never be trusted and should rot in hell? Can everyone on these forums prove that they have never lied, and therefore be trusted. What about logging in with an alias instead of your real name? What about making your alias appear to be the opposite gender for purposes of looking like someone who you are not?

I am proposing that because Chad appeared to lie about the location, does not mean that the entire case is garbage. That sort of logic is illogical. When something is proven, then it will be proven.

From this neat summary of How often do we lie to others?.
  "Most people lie to others once or twice a day and deceive about 30 people per week."

About statistics: It has been brought up many times before, I will say it again. Statistics is NOT proof! Just because the majority of people may be of the opinion that the drones are a hoax does not prove that the drones are a hoax. I.E. 10/10 hoax-believers say the drones are a hoax! What does that prove?

As well, regarding logic, the kind that is TRUE/FALSE; if someone cannot do something, then that does not prove that something cannot be done. The shadow anomalies in PICT16 appear to be the strongest lead to the drones being fake, yet it is still not logically proven FALSE just because someone cannot replicate that image.

Again, I appear to be propping up the drone story, when in fact I am just trying to point out that some hoax-believer sites have purposefully set out to use statistics instead of logic. They may turn out to be right in the end, but at this point, I think it is at best just an "educated" guess.

To me this still is an unanswered question. The mere thougt, that it's not "allowed" to investigate the possible workings of a (Maybe) extraterrestrial drone haunts me like a bad dream...sure we need to see what it might use of engineering, as it is one of many ways to determine if the technology is "ours" or "theirs"...come on...sure we need to speculate! And saying that the DRT is illegal, what kind of nonsense is that?

No, I encourage all here to seek everywhere to find all that even looks similar to the drones, as I see we will be up against much more disbelief in the future, much of it caused by misinformants on other forums.

Best wishes,

EVS

[10538]

Let's say you saw something so unbelievably fantastic and you just happen to have a camera handy.  For sure you'd take a picture.  But why?  You want to tell the world, "look what I discovered" and ask the question "what is it"?

When Chad was asked where the pics were taken he responded not with a direct answer but with "I am located about 10 miles outside of Bakersfield California".  Was that a lie?  Probably.  It definitely was evasive to say the least.  Many are perplexed by this action.  I have to admit, I likely would have done the same as Chad.  One thing you want more than anything in this situation is anonymity. 

So back to the cool pics you just took.  Now you find yourself stuck between a rock and a hard place.  You want so much to tell the world but on the other hand you don't want anybody knowing who you are or where you live.  For this reason the reports that come with evidence should be taken with a grain of salt. 

What is the purpose of a report?  Why report at all?  There is no requirement of a report.  It can be to tell the story and explain how it all happened for the benefit of the reader (nice guys these witnesses are).  It also can simply be a smoke screen intended to throw off the hordes that will inevitably come out of curiosity and who knows what else.  Do you risk your livelihood and that of your family to get the evidence to the world?  Certainly not.  It's a big unknown and you can't take the chance.

I wonder how many awesome UFO pictures have been tossed into the trash out of fear?

[EVS]

I see that other Forums now is close to establish that what "Isaac" provided are exactly what he said it was, scans...

I can't see that but as another hint that "Isaac" might tell the truth. (at least about how things was done)

So, even if some witnesses chose to hide the location of their sightings, there still may be some truth to the story, as it's becoming more truthful that "Isaac" recognized the shape of the crafts....

The obvious reason that "Isaac" are using a flatbed  "home" scanner, is the only way he had to expose the evidence. Ofcourse the use of the Xerox copier at CARET stood for the "original" scans, then Isaac used a scanner of his own (or another scanner available) to publish his findings on the net.

I'm quite surprised, that this didn't come up earlier... 

I think the blue "T" is a scanner mark, and has nothing to do with the original scans, the ones "Isaac" was able to smuggle out from CARET.
 
Just my opinion, but the assumption that the material provided by "Isaac" indeed are scans, and not of digital photographic origin suggest it has more to it than what meets the eye, hoaxwise or realitywise. Maybe it's a real hoax....

EVS