More Experiments - Project "SmarterThanThat"

[SuperFinGuy]

BTW, loving your videos mooeypoo. I haven't been very available for our dear youtube these days but I just can't wait to share some experiments soon!

[DyingOldPeople]

oh, and science is bullshit, just another monstrous orthodoxy. just let fucking go. stop trying to know/control. fuck all that. just suck and fuck, gorge on food until you roll under the table in vomit and oblivion ($5 to anyone who can tell me where that's from), etc.

the sky is falling. the sky isn't falling.

[SuperFinGuy]

You know, it is misleading to accept an explanation just because it is the most familiar or comfortable, while avoiding the real logical implications of the issue. Remember that what is familiar is not necessarily rational or plausible. The unfamiliar can be as plausible as anything known.

[mooeypoo]

That's a bit unfair, isn't it? Scientists do research these phenomenon, they don't just 'accept' explanations because they are comfortable. They just discover them as being either unproven, or wrong.

[SuperFinGuy]

Well, I am a scientist myself and I research UFO's on my spare time (having almost none lately btw but I'll be back soon enough) and I can tell you that alot of so called scientists are very biased and dismiss the thing without any consideration. It is pathological actually, and almost unreal to see people neuroticaly ignoring the evidence right under their noses.

[mooeypoo]

Yes, but you're not the only one researching it. There are other scientists out there researching this topic, and individual sightings, that showed many (all of the ones I know of, feel free to give a specific one that wasn't) that were either hoaxes, mistaken sightings (people don't understand what they see) or other well-explained causes.

The point is that saying the scientific community is hiding the data isn't fair. There are many people researching this.

[SuperFinGuy]

I wouldn't say the scientific community in general, but NASA is not only ignoring but also lying about UFO's. Check this out for example and tell me what you think.

watch?v=klzHdrWUb-Q

[acs1978au]

I have done extensive research on the ufo phenomenon over the last 2 and a half years. All I have found is hearsay, blurry/doctored photos, charlatans/con-artists and highly dubious videos. Nothing entirely convincing. Stephen Greer seems to be one of the most convincing ufo/alien contactees and researchers, but other than hearsay, has produced nothing absolutely solid. Some other names worth checking out include Phillip Corso, Phil Schneider, David Icke, David Sereda, Billy Meier to name a few.

[INeedAToiletQuick]

lesbian, narcissist, exhibitionist: bad combination. good lips, though.

[smarterthanthat]

By the way, saying that science/scientists don't "believe" in UFOs because they don't investigate them is not true. There are whole groups of scientists investigating these claims (and proving them WRONG). The fact you don't *like* the conclusion doesn't mean the research isn't there.

But again.. this isn't the subject here, and I would really rather avoid confusing people. Let's stick with scientific experiments here ;)

[SuperFinGuy]

Not seti mooeypoo, their explanation to why they dont consider UFO's is written very clearly on their website (look for the word ufo on their faq section) - because "no serious scientist believe that UFOs have anything to do with extraterrestrial visitors."

Are you seeing them saying anything about the nasa UFO's? It's just ignored by most of the academia. But yeah let's keep with the experiments and prove something.

[khoavuong]

According to Neil deGrasse Tyson, Stephen Colbert and you are accomplished astrophysicists because you do the following:

1. ask questions

2. be open minded

3. know things

4. teach those things

[majoha2020]

shut up and us your tits again

[SuperFinGuy]

I want in!!

[smarterthanthat]

I'm glad you like the idea, SuperFinGuy, but I have a feeling we will differ in our perspectives on some scientific matters. Regardless, we don't all have to agree on everything. You're most welcome to keep watching, and suggest other experiment ideas if you think of any :)

[SuperFinGuy]

Great, that's what science is all about discussing and explaining stuff and coming up with new ideas, hey we dont want to be dogmatic here, do we?! I do electronics engineering myself and and it will be a pleasure to show people what science is all about - discovery and creativity that can actually be appied to reality. Can't get more exciting than that. I'll be glad to contribute with some scientific experiments soon.

[SuperFinGuy]

Btw, what is your opinion on the idea that extraterrestrials might have visited us here in the present or in the past?

[smarterthanthat]

Read the Bad Astronomer blog on those matters, I believe his posts summarize most of my notions about these issues - and way better than what I can write.

[SuperFinGuy]

I'm just starting to read the blog, and the "Richard Hoagland's Nonsense" article concerning claims of artificial structures on mars and I must say that Phil Plaits just calls Hoagland silly and that's basically it. He doesn't bring any scientific reasons to why he thinks the whole face on mars thing is silly after all. And then he mixes it with unproven and far fetched theories like the "moon landings were faked"...

[SuperFinGuy]

not to mention that Hoagland is just a well connected charlatan that is taking the face on mars ride to promote unverified, confusing and wild claims.

[smarterthanthat]

It's not about charlatan'ism, it's about the brain's tendency to produce images out of patterns.

Well documented phenomenon; we do that with star constellations too. I suggest you pick up his book "Bad Astronomy" from the library and read up on it. Also, check out the recent mars rover photos that disprove the "face on mars" bit. Also - reading up on why UFOs in general are implausible might prove interesting as well.

[SuperFinGuy]

Yeah, the brain has a tendecy to spot patterns in things but is that the case concerning the "face on mars"? Specially that these spotted patterns we were able to make confirmed predictions of more recognized patterns?! Predicted in advance patterns?! Is that the "cloud effect"?!

Which mars rover picture? Do you have a link? The mars rover saw the so called plateau?

[SuperFinGuy]

Yeah, that's good reading, but most theories on the implausibility of UFO's are flawed. Like for example that interstellar travel is impossible. Do you have a good one? The existence of life out there is more than a possibility, it is a probability.

[smarterthanthat]

Considering the amazingly low probability that a superintelligent alien race would build something so extraurdinarily obvious as a *face* on mars, but would otherwise do its best to remain secretive (what, their sole interest in coming millions of light years over here is to molest cows and shadow the government? ...) I would say it's just much more plausible that the *current* photos don't lie, and we just have a vivid imagination.

Occham's Razor on that one.

[SuperFinGuy]

There have been many accounts of UFO's, even showing up on nasa cameras and they don't seem to need to travel million of light years to get here, they seem to manipulate what we officially don't know the nature of, like inertia, gravity and the electric field that drives electrons.

[SuperFinGuy]

What you're saying resembles a lot with the Fermi paradox but UFO's do show up sometimes and since they're mentality is more advanced we wouldn't really know from a lower paradigm. Maybe they are here just to study us as in Animal Planet and/or want us to discover them on our own efforts.

[smarterthanthat]

Proof, my friend. Extraurdinary claims require extraurdinary evidence. I've seen none, and trust me -- I've looked.

My previous "incarnation" (before coming out as a skeptic) was a UFO proponent. I know what you're talking about, I just - after a long time - realized it's simply not supported (to say the least).

I would *love* to believe there are aliens that are right here, right now, visiting us, i'm simply saying it is so improbable, i would rather stick with proven science.

[SuperFinGuy]

Well to say the least, we have the evidence and the logical conclusion that since it is probable there are extraterrestrials then it is probabable that they might visit us too. People should investigate further on UFO's and get some proof. Lets just not discard it. Just remember that in the late 1800's the official word was that heavier than air machines were impossible to fly and oh were they wrong.

[smarterthanthat]

Let's just agree to disagree, then, at least until I actually see this "extraordinary evidence", hm? ;)

[SuperFinGuy]

Ok, fair enough. What about the NASA UFO's as extraordinary evidence? You have studied physics, astronomy and I presume you know that the NASA excuses don't hold water.

[ReeseTora]

I am interested in seeing these NASA UFOs that you refer to, do you have a link or reference so that others can see what you are talking about?

To be honest of my own view in UFOs, I only use UFO in the strictest sense, refering to an object as yet unidentified. So long as it's a UFO I see no reason to believe that it may be related to extraterrestrials becasue a terrestrial explanation is more plausible. That is not to say I am unwilling to be shown that extraterrestrials exist, of course.

[SuperFinGuy]

Check my channel, I have some interesting videos of the NASA UFO's that maybe you'd like to comment on (NASA won't lol). Also for further reference you might want to check out the Martin Stubbs footage that he downlinked from NASA transmissions. Incredible stuff that is going above our heads and NASA is in denial even in the face of the undeniable UFO's seen in the sts-80 mission. That mission for example is amazingly obvious and there's no way for a "terrestrial" explanation.

[ReeseTora]

those UFOs seem pretty deniable to me, dust and ice from debris or the orbiter, reflections, one segment was clearly a thunderstorm. You might want to read some of the explanations that have been clearly posted in the comments on your videos.

At best, you can claim that the objects are UFOs in the strict sense of being unidentified.

[SuperFinGuy]

Those are the excuses that NASA and co. is giving and they are clearly lying. Me and others

have explained more than a few times before why they are ridiculous. If you're talking

physics here (or even common sense) you'd have to admit that kind of reflections are unheard

of...Listen, debris dissipates rapidly and don't hang around for long in space; debris do not change direction and speed abrutly or move away from earth's gravity; debris do not shoot out of earth's orbit;

[SuperFinGuy]

debris/dust don't orbit along with the shuttle; ice crystals do

not remain in direct sunlight; dust/debris do not change direction and speed to become

geostationary...I could go on and on.

They are unidentified objects alright, but they seem to be alien because we dont have that

type of technology and debris/dust are not like that or behave like that. You know what, we

should discuss the concrete footage content and see who's right.

I know that NASA refuses to do that.

[ReeseTora]

Have you considered that, rather than lying, they might be right?

You say they lie, that they are wrong, but have you tested thier theories? It would be a fairly simple matter to test them.

1: your vid that you shot yourself, you could find another object known to you of a similar magnitude and size, and view it under the same extreme zoom conditions to see if they do produce similar images, this would be very simple to test.

[ReeseTora]

2: the vids fro the shuttle, it would be a simple matter to test this by finding a dark location, setting up a bit of white string with a black backdrop and dust sprinkled in the foreground. simply film it with a light source that is just strong enough to make the string bleed out as in the video, and watch to see if the dust produces orbs that appear to move behind the string.

Out of courtesy to mooey, I will not respond further in this thread.

[SuperFinGuy]

Believe me, I thought that NASA was scientific in the real meaning of the term before I found out they are dishonest and dogmatic. As a proof of their pseudo-science, consider that they've been using the same basic technology fot the last 45 years (it's even funny lol). Needless to say, I think that their UFO theories are wrong because they make no sense in reality. The reasons I gave you and that you just ignored show pretty obviously why they cannot be debris or dust.

[SuperFinGuy]

The experiment you proposed wouldn't show if the objects are aliens or not but rather how shining/reflecting objects appear on a camera (would have to be a state of the art ccd one) against a dark beckground. What you mean "extreme zooming conditions" btw? And notice that the tether is not bleeding out or overposing the objects, it is actually very sharply focused and zoomed. Notice how the edges are very well defined and not a blurry mixture of the objects involved.

[SuperFinGuy]

If you can reproduce or show me a video of such optical illusion I'll drop my jaw for you.

Oh and my apologies to mooeypoo if our dicussion here on UFO's is inappropriate.

[davidproper]

Cool idea. I went and subscribed.

[XGralgrathor]

That's right; concentrate on the basics - every little bit helps.

[leporidus]

This is a great idea, mooeypoo. Kudos!

[smarterthanthat]

You know what? When you're excited about something, you find the time.

Plus.. when you explain to others, you understand better yourself, and.. uhm.. I had a physics exam last week, so, it's not like I'm entirely altruistic...

;)

[ImAlwaysR1ght]

shalom my rational friend. =]

[msginca]

I think I have a really bad crush on you. In fact, I'll bet alot of guys on YT do also.

[davidproper]

That's because intelligence is really sexy.

[msginca]

That's exactly why.

[davidproper]

The problem with the "normal" guys desire to screw these insanely hot chicks is you can't spend all your time having sex. Sooner or later... you're going to have to talk to her. And if she can't carry on a decent conversation, then why waste time sleeping with her? Intelligence is WAY more sexier then a "perfect" body.. Which in reality, don't even exist.

[msginca]

Again ... Exactly right. Most of the time you spend with a partner is OUTSIDE of the bedroom. Beyond that, I've never understood why any man would want to spend the days of his life with a literal potato head. I want someone who will enjoy intelligent interaction ... we can always act stupid as a "Fun" option, ... but personally, I need someone who's lights are ON ... and they're HOME.

[msginca]

MooeyPoo is hot property, plain and simple.

[davidproper]

Can't agree more with that. I would so choose awesome intelligence over awesome looks any day.

After all. Looks can fade or be lost. But 'stupid' is forever.

[smarterthanthat]

kidding? meee!?!?! never in such serious topics.

Bubble bath, too.

You liked the duckies? ;)

[CousinoMacul]

You weren't kidding about the bathtub.  :-)

[chalkers]

Thank you moooooooooeypoo