| |
Home
|
|
 |
Messages
|
|
| |
Chat
|
|
| |
Files
|
|
| |
Photos
|
|
| |
Links
|
|
| |
Database
|
|
| |
Polls
|
|
| |
Members
|
|
| |
Calendar
|
|
| |
| |
| |
Promote
|
|
| |
| |
| |  = Owner | |
| |  = Moderator | |
| |  = Online | |
|
|
|
From:
"Carl Wilson" <carl@k...>
Date: Sun Aug 4, 2002 4:34
am
Subject: Fw: How to Fool absolutely Nobody, Part 5
|
ADVERTISEMENT
 | |
----- Original Message -----
Newsgroups: alt.binaries.ufo.files
Sent: Wednesday, July 31, 2002 6:23 PM
Subject: Re: How to Fool absolutely Nobody, Part 5
John Baker wrote: "Roberta 'Mop Jockey' Wolfe" <rob@www.genetics.pitt.edu> wrote in message
news:3D46D670.64058032@www.genetics.pitt.edu...
> >
> > Gee whiz, Bobby, maybe you're not as dumb as I thought you were.
>
> Gee diddley, Ned Flanders, coming here to post your lame attempts at
nothing is
> pretty damn dumb. Did I strike a nerve, Bobby? No. If you did, would you strike that up as a "small victory" in your worthless life? Hit a little too close to home, maybe? :-) No. I don't find myself making fake UFO photos, or writing new passages for bibles of various religions to screw with people. Your "home" is nowhere near mine. I
wasn't attempting to do anything other than poke a little fun at the overly
credulous. Poke away... Don't be surprised when you get poked back. Can't take a joke? Your humorless response is ample evidence of my success. Oh... I bet someone got a chuckle over your lame attempt. I know I did. >
> > That's the
> > point, you see. *None* of them are very convincing when you look a
little
> > closer. Like with a hex editor?
>
> Then what are you "proving" besides you are either incapable or unwilling
to
> attempt a convincing FAKE to "prove" that ALL UFO photos are fakes? I have yet to see one that isn't either an obvious fake or of such low
quality that you can't honestly say what it actually is. Good for you. Stick your head back in the sand then. Bad photos of
unidentified lights or amorphous blobs don't cut it as evidence. Agreed, 199%. Now what happens when someone drops a photographic plate from NASA in front of you. Would you be willing to investigate the evidence? If you can
show me even one unambiguous photo that you can prove is the genuine
article, I might be willing to listen to what you have to say. Sorry... don't have any on me. Perhaps you should check with some govt. agencies? Until then,
you're just another credulous woo woo. Is that an assumption? I'm a skeptic, BTW. I just happen to know the definition and you DON'T. BTW, that little diversion might have
taken me a whole 10 minutes from conception to finished "product." If that took you 10 minutes to do something so low-res, then you are pathetic. As I
said, I was only poking a little light-hearted fun at the saucer geeks. Poke away. Don't be surprised when you look like a trolling dumbass. For
one thing, I wouldn't have used that background image if I'd really been
trying to fool anyone. For one thing, anything that touched digital is not going to get much consideration as evidence. HTH. For another, I'd have spent a good deal more time on
it. If I'd actually done a *serious* job and posted it as the real deal,
you'd have bought it without question, and if you have the balls to be
honest with yourself, you damn well know it. So does your camera stamp all of your images with "Adobe Photoshop"? I'll bet the farm you don't have any idea how to make that go away. Given the level of credulity
you generally demonstrate, Please demonstrate YOUR credulity... I'm not so sure you wouldn't have bought this one
if I hadn't identified it up front as a simple fake. Uh, huh.... Riiiiiiiight. >
> > Of course, I'd be willing to be that you'd have accepted it as real
> > if I hadn't said up front that it's a fake. <G>
>
> I don't care what you're *willing* to "be"... you are nothing but a troll. And I got you on the first cast, didn't I? That hook must really hurt. <G>
BTW, criticizing typos is a sure sign you're shooting with blanks. Did I say "anythig" about a typo? But then
what else could we expect, since you obviously completely missed the point
of the original post. It's a joke, son. One of those "so funny we forgot to laugh" type of jokes? Nothing more. Except a lame ass and "posturing expert" troll by an idiot. Of course, I'm not
surprised at the tone of your response. It's no more (or less) than I'd
expect from someone with no detectable sense of humor. So then does that mean that this *isn't* funny: 
...cause *I* thought it was pretty damn funny! Anybody else feel the same? >
> >
> >
> > Oh, BTW, you have it ass-backwards.
>
> Oh, BTW the interference pattern would be the same. It would look like
shit.
>
> > The source is low-res, taken with a
> > digital camera. The background is hi-res.
>
> Isn't your very presence in this NG ass-backwards in and of itself? HTH. It's an unmoderated group. If you don't like it, plonk me. I'd rather expose you as a troll and a kook for a couple years. Hope you don't mind. Got any "Russian Bride" bookmarks you want to get out of the way now instead of later?
> >
|
|
