> As I thought
> You knew you couldn't back up your ridiculous
> statement on RD, so you'll try diversion... Again.
> Then you try to say that you got pissy in reaction
> to my replies. Wrong again, Phil. You started
> getting condescending and didn't expect to get
> push back.
> It's all there. I was polite. You started
> getting rude. I pushed back, but only after I had
> been polite to your pompous ass repeatedly and you
> started to portray me as your inferior and then an
> evangelical whatever.
> As for the rest of this diatribe, I suggest that
> you read my position statement again. This
> immature blathering of yours is nothing I'm
> interested in continuing.
> Next time, take care to think of whom you
> condescend to in the future, bub.
[Note: I don’t expect anyone to actually read this. I just want it here as an easy access record. Sorry, but this kind of dual-logic discourse fascinates me.]
OK, so after repeated requests, you still have no explanation for slandering me buy putting disparaging remarks in my mouth, you have no evidence of a blinking Sun, no eyewitness account of anyone in the audience seeing a blinking Sun, no information about the veracity of the videographer whose work you seem so eager to embrace, and you’ve given no acknowledgement that the videos may be misrepresenting what actually happened that day.
Let’s continue your line of thought. In your earlier post you claim to have gone through the history of “pissiness" in this discussion. At one point you make the statements:
- From there you got increasingly pissy, Phil.
Origyptian "Pulsing can simply be a finger passing over the light sensor on the camera."
"What is it about any of those videos that seem even remotely authentic to you?"
That strikes you as increasingly pissy? I simply described a possible way to logically achieve the same effect without invoking a ‘miracle' and asked you what you found so compelling about those couple of videos on YouTube.
- 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.
“Careless” is not “pissy”. Guadalupe is a lot more relevant than your story about the guru, neither of which reported a blinking Sun. And what intrigued me is not that you claimed to have "called me out" (you did no such thing), but rather how relentless you were about not acknowledging that the videos were likely tampered with, that there are no eyewitness reports of a blinking Sun, and how many times you tried to twist the discussion into making me look like the bad guy, going so far as to fabricate comments from me that claimed you and the audience were hallucinating on drugs. I made no such comments.
You publicly reproduced the exact entire text of your Private Message to me. You still haven’t acknowledged that doing so is a violation of the GHMB CoC. I’m not “prosecuting” you for that, because it’s not my rule to enforce, it’s Graham Hancock’s rule that you violated and that had to agree to when you signed up here. But not a reason to get pissy.
Let's take a deeper look at your summary in the above quote. You claimed I got “increasingly pissy” but you neglected to post a link to any of those comments. Meanwhile, you made a reference to the:
- …actual solar ‘miracle’ as the written testimonials so explicitly attest.
You have hinted repeatedly about eyewitness reports and testimonials, and I asked you respectfully, several times, if you could reproduce any of those “explicit” testimonials, and you have neglected to produce any, even as you continue to insist they exist. Not a reason to get pissy?
Also in that same post:
- As I said at the outset, Phil, I'm open to all possibilities. Try reading that a few times, it might actually sink in.
I considered that to be rude and unwarranted, especially since I said nothing up to that point that was “pissy”. I only asked you what you found to compelling in those videos. But still not a reason to get pissy, right?
- "It is all so very easy to apply denialist thinking to the arcane past.”
What gave you the urge to mention "denialist"? Are you calling me a denialist because I’m questioning the veracity of a couple of videos published by complete strangers that show something that’s never been mentioned before, not even by those who attended those events?! Still not a reason to get pissy?
What have I said in the past week that sounded “pissy” to you? I remained quite civil during most of our discourse, while you repeatedly deflected, misrepresented, and flat out lied about what was said here.
You replied to me with this post 3 days ago:
- You would just say that it is all part of the hoax. Anybody can come up with a conspiracy theory. Sounds like you really believe that here…
So now you think you can read my mind, and you accuse me of suggesting a conspiracy theory? And yet I still have not gotten “pissy” back at you.
How about this one in your same post after I described the experiment I did to alter the exposure of a video frame to mimic the blinking Sun effect:
- Let us all be VERY CLEAR, Origyptian. You did NOT mimic the video and you have NOT come close to meeting my direct challenge. Here's one from 2010, apparently. Another for you to produce evidence to compare to.
So I should feel obligated to "meet" your "direct challenge"? That’s as presumptuous as it is arrogant, considering you haven’t lifted a finger to provide any evidence at all that the Sun actually was indeed blinking at those events. I’m not trying to prove anything to you, I'm only questioning the veracity of those YouTube videos. But rather than countering with your own evidence, you have no qualms about issuing me a direct challenge, this time about yet another video? But I still didn't get pissy with you. And actually, in the next post I sent to you, the only thing remotely resembling a terse comment from me up to that point was:
- Yes, it was very easy to mimic the effect within a few seconds. You seem to be in total denial about this and I'm wondering why, unless you're simply one of the faithful who wants it to be true.
Hardly an example of “increasingly pissy”. In fact, I have no problem with the faithful and the belief in such things. Christians want there to be a Heaven, they want to be admitted there, they believe God is in control of everything and that when calamity strikes, it's an example of God working in “mysterious ways”. That’s not a disparaging remark, these are well known, common characteristics of the faith. Nothing to be shy, embarrassed, or defensive about. The faithful simply want to believe. And I have no problem with that..as long as they don’t require me to believe the same thing (and I’m saying that as a general principle and not as a statement of whether I do or do not subscribe to a similar faith).
Your reply to me (Jan 7, 7:21PM) includes:
- The testimonials are what the testimonals are, sir. There are many of them and you will see the people looking in the direction of the sun.
Yet another reference to alleged testimonials, none of which you’ve willing or able to cite up to that point.
- I think it is more likely that the space between the sun and the crowds was somehow distorted, which caused the effects. Shall we rule that out, Origyptian, in the name of iron boats not being able to float?
You see nothing pissy about that comment? OK, how about this one:
- Your whole argument is predicated on people pretending they are moved by solar anomalies, and that they go home and manipulate footage. It ENTIRELY ignores supporting testimonials. Like I said, anybody can concoct a conspiracy theory.
Let’s dissect that one: You wrongly accuse me of claiming the audience was pretending to be moved by what they saw, you wrongly accuse me of claiming “they” go home and manipulate footage (at least one, possibly two, but certainly not the group of honest faithful!), you reference those alleged testimonials again and yet don’t provide any citations to any of them, and then end it with an assertion that I’m accusing someone of a conspiracy theory. How can your summary of my “whole argument” be completely wrong? Not to mention that you claimed that I accused you and the hundreds in that audience to be hallucinating on drugs (I most certainly did not). MIght that be cause to get pissy?
- ...the group reactions and the testimonials that some sort of solar anomalies occrred
Yet another reference to these mysterious testimonials, but now the miracle has been waffled back to “some sort of solar anomalies”? What’s going on here, Poster Boy?
And in reply to my previous post (which was still respectful), you come back with:
- Origyptian:The fact is, the "Dancing" descriptor far more accurately refers to the morphing shape of the Sun's glare as the clouds pass by and not to any blinking of the Sun.
Poster Boy: This is BS. It really indicates to me how superficial your treatment of this discussion, and smug. I did address your concern about the subdued crowd when I followed up with the India post. Do your own research, there are plenty of testimonials out there.
Now, what on earth got you so pissy about my comment? All I did was repeat what some of those testimonials about the dancing Sun said. Basically, as it is massaged by the passing wafts of clouds, the glare of the Sun changed shape and assumes what some believe looked like an image of the Virgin Mary. That’s simple and non-disparaging. It’s what I read was the reason that they had gathered there in the first place. Some web sites actually superimpose an illustration of Mary over the Sun to demonstrate the contours that resemble her. What do you think is BS about that? What’s superficial about it? I did my own research to glean that characterization, which, by the way, completely supports the crowd reaction we see in those videos.
But where are all those testimonials about a blinking Sun? My own research hasn’t turned up any yet, and neither has yours, apparently. And yet you go on:
- You are so mired in your prespective being the only one that can be right, you can't fathom anything else.
And yet you haven’t lifted a finger to provide any evidence or narrative or belief about the “anything else” that you think it could actually be. All I did was challenge the veracity of those blinking Sun videos. You keep taking issue with that and relentlessly defend the blinking Sun on those videos. I have no idea why you are embracing those blinking Sun videos since you don’t seem to have seen it with your own eyes, you don’t know anything about the videographers, you don’t know how those videos were made, you can’t explain why there’s only 1 video per event (over 2 events) showing the blinking Sun even though there were “hundreds” of people who came specifically expecting to see a miracle. Why wouldn’t you expect most of them to pull out their cells to record the event? And yet you claim that I'm the one being arrogant here?
And later in that same post:
- Later on in my jhournal I write that I was there for forty-five minutes, studying the situation and the people's reactions. Few looked up at the 'stars' for more than a couple of minutes. Most reverted to a normal emotional state quite quickly.
And so you wrote in your journal how long you were there, that you were “studying the situation”, and that you studied the people’s reaction. But you never state what you actually saw! I don’t recall you ever saying what you saw. And I’m curious why that is. And finally, you comment here:
- No, I won't continue this discussion with you because your rushes to judgement are just that. No, because I think your treatment of this discussion is judgemental, pedantic and frankly predictably boring. I certainly won't make the time to answer questions for you that you could come up with with a little effort on your own part.
Your own comments sound pretty pissy to me, and yet I’d not yet slung a single insulting, disparaging, or pissy comment at you up to that point. You claim I'm the one that's rushing to judgement even though I went through the diligence to first prove to myself how easy it was to mimic the blinking sun using free and rudimentary post-processing software while you are so quick to embrace those videos despite the lack of any credibility of the videographer(s), your lack of diligence to understand digital post-processing, and your resistance to even post a citation of any eyewitness report that you seem to think corroborates what's shown on those videos.
Actually, the first time I gave you any attitude seems to be Jan 8, 3:58AM:
- Poster Boy: You have said it was easy to manipulate the light sensor. You made the claim. You probably didn't expect to be called out on that…
Origyptian: That takes nerve, my friend. I don't play that kind of game. You, on the other hand have no qualms whatsoever about completely embracing videos generated and posted by complete strangers, and yet you apparently feel no compulsion to inquire with those individuals as to the true nature of their videos, and yet you claim I am required to prove those videos are a hoax?...even when I clearly showed that a normal (darker) frame from the video can almost perfectly mimic the saturated (brighter) "blinked on" image, you still claim it's not good enough because I didn't run that same effect on multiple frames in the same video? That hardly makes any sense at all, not to mention the catastrophic double standard of your position.
Different logical belief systems in confrontation.
I think it's a fascinating discourse.
How can any of us ever know, when all we can do is think?
Edited 11 time(s). Last edit at 09-Jan-18 21:13 by Origyptian.