> However, because you are commenting on an event
> that was public, and analogous in that
> regard to the one that I directly experienced at
> another time, at a time when I saw hundreds of
> people witness the same thing, the only way that
> your interpretation can make sense is if everybody
> experienced a collective hallucination, or were
> tripping, or were experiencing simultaneous
That's incorrect since I've seen no one else but you and the couple of videographers claim there was a blinking Sun in the first place. So how can all those people be insulted if they never saw the blinking Sun? And why do you keep deflecting from describing in detail what you actually saw out there in the field, because even though you are arguing with me about the blinking Sun, you still haven't even claimed you've actually seen it with your own eyes. Are you simply defending the videographers that posted those couple of clips on YouTube?
Why do you keep twisting this discussion into trying to make it look like I'm insulting all those hundreds of people? I've done no such thing. Do you understand that now, or are you going to waste more bandwidth in denial as you continue to try to make this a different argument than the one you started when you took issue with me challenging those videos? I don't want to hear that the others saw what you saw. I want to hear what you saw. Why are you not describing what you saw in detail?
Meanwhile, I haven't insulted a single member of those faithful that attended those events, perhaps other than the videographers that tried to portray the "miracle" as a blinking Sun when there is zero corrobration, even from the audience itself, that such a thing actually did happen. Surely you realize this is the point. I've not accused any other member of the audience of lying, hallucinating, or doing anything other than beaming in their faith, and I have absolutely no problem with that as long as it's a peaceful gathering that doesn't impose on others who have a different belief system.
> Otherwise, you have left out all of the other
> witnesses, in choosing the wrong Ram Das, and
> trying to explain how he ALONE, to the exclusion
> of everyone else, 'might' have seen the dancing
> stars at the time in question. Your explanation,
> in other words, is woefully inadequate and when
> you consider the public nature of these incidentS,
> to such an extent that it is ridiculous.
Forget Ram Das. Did you see the dancing stars? What are "dancing stars", anyway? I'm assuming that's not the same as a blinking Sun. In fact, I'm pretty sure that the "dancing Sun" also isn't a blinking Sun. So what is it that you're taking issue with other than suggesting that the Sun really did blink by virtue of some unknown, never before identified atmospheric anomaly that suddenly causes an oscillation in the passage of light from the Sun to that particular field?
You're not doing yourself any good by persisting with this unless you come up with a viable explanation for the blinking Sun. Otherwise, I'm happy that those peaceful people find peace and happiness in their interpretation of how the clouds massaged the shape of the solar glare to make it seem to be "dancing". Unfortunately, none of them claimed to have seen the Sun blinking.
> Now, here's your big chance, Phil. If you meant
> something else with your point here about the
> wrong RD, lay it out in clear detail.
My big chance? What is the point about you meaning a different "RD"? What have you proven other than making us glean something from your story since you neglected to include any details to clarify your point in the first place? Does the Ram Das story authenticate the blinking Sun? No. Does that add an eyewitness account to the blinking Sun? No. Does it give us any details about the nature of the "dancing Sun" other than it being a "miracle"? No. Does it give us any details about the nature of those "dancing stars"? No.
The story about the guru is irrelevant to this discussion. it has nothing to do with those 'blinking Sun' videos so please stop trying to change the subject. I retract my statement about the non-guru; I shouldn't have engaged in that irrelevant story anyway.
So now what? Where does that leave the blinking Sun, the unknown videographers, the lack of any details describing the "dancing Sun", the video frame that shows the effect can be achieved with very simple digital post-processing with free software, and your deflection by introducing Ram, dancing stars, Fatima, and other irrelevant deflections.
> Tell us why
> you would only bring up one individual when it
> comes to at least two public events. How would
> that suffice, even supposing that you actually had
> the right Ram Das?
> Origyptian: Ram Dass (Richard Alpert) knows of
> "no other phenomena" that could explain his vision
> of thousands of shooting stars moving in "curves
> and culicues"? Might his personal experience using
> LSD and psilocybin with Timothy Leary as they
> explored the "medicinal value" of hallucinogens
> through their Harvard Psilocybin Project possibly
> have had a recurring influence on his visual
> perceptions? He co-authored "The Psychedelic
> Experience" and also "LSD", two books about his
> experience; he was kicked out of Harvard in 1963"
You're still deflecting. Our discussion is about a blinking Sun, not dancing stars.
> You have the floor...
Are you really trying to make a case that I got the wrong RD? How on earth does that address the blinking Sun? Please explain that to me because you've gone off the rails in this discussion. Don't you agree that there really isn't any known physical phenomenon that can account for a blinking Sun? Maybe the videographer realized the "miracle" wasn't really that spectacular when it's viewed on the video, so it made sense to tweak the video to make it more dramatic. I know of no report in the archeological record of a blinking Sun, no scientific or mass religious report of such an effect, we only have a couple of rogue videos on YouTube.
> Finally, once again you accuse me of
> proselytizing, accusing me of being on an
> evangelical crusade, when in fact have only
> replied to you because I won't let innane remarks
> like this pass without comment on matters I find
> to be a serious interest.
What inane remarks? That the blinking Sun in those videos might be the result of post-processing? Guilty as charged.
> So, let's take it from the top, Phil...
> In your first post to me, on this subthread, you
> wrote this:
> "Honestly, I'm not sure what's being referred to
> as the miracle here.
> How can we be sure it's not an artifact of the
> camera's light sensor?"
> In my follow-up to you I took care to affirm
> your position, which I agree with. It was the
> first thing I wrote.
> Not saying that it isn't a camera issue.
> However, the eye-witness testimony speaks to a
> very different outcome AND, in the time that I've
> begun looking into this, I am yet to have anyone
> show that the non-Fatima videos are based on
> camera-related issues.
Incorrect. I showed that it's quite possible (likely) that the blinking Sun did not happen. Whether it was a saturated sensor in a cell phone, a tricked sensor on a camera, or post-processing software on a computer, I've presented evidence to support the notion that the blinking Sun didn't really happen. And so what evidence do you care to present to support your alternative position?
But OK, where are all those "eyewitness reports" that say anything about a blinking Sun? Please post those when you get a chance so you can show me how I've insulted all of them.
> It seems to me that it
> would be very easy for doubters to replicate the
> results with their own cameras or cellphones, if
> that is what is really going on...
If you didn't know how to do it, I think it's fair to assume that you're not alone and that it is NOT easy for most people to do that unless one is familiar with digital image processing, then it's very easy to do. Being a "doubter" has nothing to do with it.
> Then, after that one, you wrote this
> "While I saw a lot of people looking at the Sun, I
> didnt' see many of them cheering at it, and what
> would that mean? They could be Sun worshippers
> glad to see the Sun rise. Maybe it was a blimp
> advertising something popular that the people were
> responding to. I saw 3 different videos and I saw
> nothing that clearly showed the Sun behaving
> abnormally. Sorry."
> In the follow up, I didn't even mention that the
> crowd was anything but 'sun worshipers', although
> I might have if I was "proselytizing." Instead, I
> wrote this, and here I cite my entire post:
> Date: January 03, 2018 11:25PM
> No need to apologize, of course!
> My reply, in other words, was entirely civil,
> polite, and above all reasonable in that I
> respected your point of view.
> From there you got increasingly pissy, Phil.
If I got "pissy" it's because you were doing then what you're doing now -- relentlessly deflecting as you also insult me by claiming I made certain disparaging remarks that I never made.
The record clearly shows that my only point was that those videos likely were tampered with and do not show what really happened at those events. Do you understand that now? I'm not criticizing the audience at those events, so please stop trying to twist this discussion into that.
> Origyptian "Pulsing can simply be a finger passing over the light sensor on the camera."
That's correct, it certainly could be.
> "What is it about any of those videos that seem
> even remotely authentic to you?"
> PB - That pulsing would be one of them. I'm not
> saying that it cant be done, only that it hasn't
> to my knowledge and should have been by now.
> Cleary, Phil, once again, I stated that I was not
> insisting I was looking at a miracle, and you
> became increasingly careless. You clearly knew
> nothing about Fatima or Church policy, you brought
> up Guadeloupe, which is irrelevant to these events
> which are public. Your summary judgement of the
> salient issues was glib and superficial. Then,
> you got increasingly annoyed that I was calling
> you out on your replies. Finally, I tried to work
> with you. Sent you a PM. Rather than reply, you
> took a run at me on the board. Now you try to
> prosecute me when all I did was sent you a copy of
> what I sent to you.
I know what happened here, so please stop reframing this discussion. I got "pissy" because your zealotry cannot accept that the videographers may have "exaggerated" what actually happened at those events, and I wonder why they felt the need to do that, just as I wonder why you are defending them so relentlessly. You made it very clear that you reject the notion that those videos were tweaked to make a non-blinking Sun blink so that they show a different "miracle" than what the audience actually witnessed at those events.
My question to you is why are you so adamant about defending those videos and not allowing the possibility that they might be misrepresenting the Sun? Why are you defending the videographers who you might not even know, and instead are denying that a bit of post-processing might actually have been applied to those videos? What do you know about those videographers that you believe imbues them with such veracity? Why do you feel the need to defend the occurrence of a blinking Sun when only you and maybe 2 YouTube videos show such a thing?
> Bad day at the office, Phil. As I said, I didn't
> bother reading that super long post because, by
> then, your replies had demonstrated to me that you
> are too emotionally invested in your assumptions
> and frankly, your treatment of what I consider to
> be a serious subject is beneath any serious
> attention. I've only written this much here in
> order to make clear why I can't be bothered this
> exchange. Your treatment of the Ram Das issue was
> the last straw, and indicative of your approach in
The only thing I'm emotionally invested in is logic and rationality. I've made no assumptions. You are making assumptions that those videos are authentic without an iota of evidence to support that assumption, and I find that fascinating. At least I bothered to apply a simple, free post-processing filter to show a logical way to reproduce the blinking Sun.
You can pout about my comments of the Das/Dass episode all you want, but it's irrelevant to the blinking Sun which you continue to deflect.
After all your posts, you still have not described in detail what you allegedly saw out there in the field, you have not described what "dancing stars" are, nor have you described what a "dancing Sun" is. You claim the audience saw the same thing you did, and since you have refused to state that you did, in fact, see the dancing Sun up to this point (I wonder why that is), I can only guess that you didn't see the dancing Sun either. So I have not insulted the audience one bit.
> So, to summarize, maybe in the end all of
> these solar anomalies, miracles or scams will be
> exposed to the satisfaction of all - as solar
> anomalies, miracles or scams.
> As I said at the outset, Phil, I'm open to all
> possibilities. Try reading that a few
> times, it might actually sink in.
> On that note I'll close by returning to the point
> I made prior to this exchange.
> Examples like this are of keen interest to me
> because they raise the possibility - the
> possibility, everyone! -that supernatural
> events are occurring in modern times. That tends
> to legitimize the possibility that they happened
> in ancient times. It is all so very easy to apply
> denialist thinking to the arcane past. Much
> harder, imo, when the potential evidence is
> happening in the here and now.
I'm glad to finally see you acknowledge the possibility of a scam.
> We have strayed from the main purpose of Michael's
> opening post. On with the discussion about ID and
I'm still trying to figure out why you chimed in with that blinking Sun video in the first place since it's not clear how it relates to the OP.
But more importantly, I'm still waiting for you to justify why you blatantly lied about comments that you claim I made:
- Dr. Phil: "A mass, simultaneous drug-induced hallucination OR a simultaneous collective LSD flashback." My God, Don't you realize how desperate you sound by making such a suggestion, which you further imply that my experience was likely due to some acid trip, along with all of the hundreds of other people that witnessed what I did?
I'm waiting for your explanation and apology for accusing me of,
1. posting that "mass, simultaneous drug-induced hallucination" quote,
2. claiming you were on an acid trip,
3. claiming that "hundreds of other people" that witnessed what you witnessed were also on an acid trip.
I said no such thing, not even close. Your assertions were completely fabricated. What possessed you to do such a thing? You have zero basis for making such assertions.
And please stop claiming the audience saw the same thing as you and post those eyewitness reports that describe a blinking Sun.
This is why I get pissy.
How can any of us ever know, when all we can do is think?
Edited 5 time(s). Last edit at 09-Jan-18 13:23 by Origyptian.