Search results

One wonders whether he still has the downloaded image. Even a basic 2-MP digicam can take a 1600x1200 image. The 200x150 image linked to in post #5 is useless. This page, which the thumbnail view links to, is no help. It just contains blowups of the thumbnail. After more digging in the...

It could be a particularly suggestive simulacrum, a thing or a particular alignment of unrelated things which is identified as something else that it happens to resemble, particularly when a lot of visual information is missing. The Mars Face is the most famous example. Here's another, a photo...

I love a good conspiracy theory. It's a refreshing diversion from reality. That's what the Zeta Ray message from the Plejarans told me to post.

For the morons who deny that a plane, Flight 77, hit the Pentagon, I ask this: what happened to Flight 77 and its passengers? Obviously it didn't land anywhere, so where the hell is it, you loonies? And how did its "black box" flight recorder wind up in the Pentagon wreckage? ........ Wait a...

AL, one cannot have a rational discussion with a conspiracy nut. Their minds are made up, and facts just annoy them.

They didn't need fill lighting. On July 20, 1969, the date of the first moon landing, at 1617 EDT, the moon was a waxing crescent, 5.78 days "old". This image is a screengrab from a Starry Night screen for that date and time. Note where Apollo 11 landed. Earth was high in the lunar sky...

Silly conspiracy people! I was with my contacts watching it land. So there! <img src="http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v349/DocDoom777/RazzFC.jpg" />

If it's a child, why would the soldiers on horses pay attention to it? "Oh my gosh, LOOK! A CHILD! Stop the horses! Take pictures!" And a more reasonable possibility is that mounted soldiers aren't interested in spotting children. Why, golly gee whiz all gosharootie, NO, I NEVER though of that...

The alleged "Area 51 badge" cannot be resolved well enough to determine what it is, ergo it is useless as evidence. Since no other info is available, 'tis interesting but by no means conclusive.

I can support the objectives of Greer's group. Hammering on the gov to release its doubtless massive accumulation of files, photos, films and videos is a worthwhile effort. However, the CSETI stuff smacks of Prophet Yahweh, and ZPE brings up images of perpetual motion machines.

The field of "paranormal" phenomena is strewn with piles of bullscheiss, and BM's crap is a big, steaming, fly-infested heap of it. The one-armed man gets far more attention than he merits. There is no rationale for dedicating further Paracast programs to it, especially when he whose name shall...

"Tell me the truth; are we still in the game?" That film is the pinnacle of bizarre, the big-screen equivalent of nested subroutines with no returns.

Obviously, one did. Do you also believe that the CIA created AIDS to kill black people and sells drugs to finance research on anti-gravity drives?

Here's an enhanced blowup of the original, reduced to half-size by HTML. It will save at 1011 x 759. It helps to have the full image for perspective.

After tweaking the original, it looks more like a child than a critter.

Enoy! And get mad as hell!

No one is perfect. <img src="http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v349/DocDoom777/evilgrin.gif" /> However, as long as you use your mighty PS powers for good (e.g., debunking the M-person's photos), such peccadilloes can be forgiven.

They're on my computer desk again! AUGH! I'm plagued with the li'l buggers. Their damned energy field always blurs the pics.

If you're going to post puerile piffle, double-space the paragraphs. At least it will be more readable, if no more rational.

There are three versions: the original 1956 gem; the 1978 remake; and the 1993 re-remake under the title "Body Snatchers", which isn't well-known. Of course, the paranormal crowd one-upped all of them with "walk-ins", doing away with the pods and the panic. Re The Thing (1982), that's a...