Chem/Con orbs.. no debunking these things

I know people who have been on the net since before 99 and it's easy to fool some of them

In the first video you linked to, the "orb" appears to be travelling in the opposite direction to the plane, so doesn't seem interested in it at all.

Also, the plane appears to be about 15+ miles away judging from the angle of view and the fact that it has to be about 5 miles high.
 
It seems that your main argument against these 'objects' being in front of the trails (closer to us) is that you assume that they pass behind the trail. Correct? If MikeC is correct, then in fact your analysis is wrong. (in fact in both the negative and positive views all you see is a merging of a single colour - white or dark - saying that it must be at he same altitude is a gross assumption) Once the altitude hurdle is overcome, this opens the door for a more mundane down to Earth explanation.
And exactly what analysis is wrong?
 
It seems that your main argument against these 'objects' being in front of the trails (closer to us) is that you assume that they pass behind the trail. Correct? If MikeC is correct, then in fact your analysis is wrong. (in fact in both the negative and positive views all you see is a merging of a single colour - white or dark - saying that it must be at he same altitude is a gross assumption) Once the altitude hurdle is overcome, this opens the door for a more mundane down to Earth explanation.
What fucking altitude hurdle? stop posting this BULLSHIT
 
The SIMPLE FUCKING FACT is that you shill bags cannot debunk these orbs... it's all quite fucking obvious You can spew ALL the BULLSHIT in the world you want about out of focus, birds, Rayleigh scattering and any other bullshit you can manage to type BUT the FACT remains... these orbs CANNOT be debunked. How many other videos do you want me to post?
 
"Chem" "fallout" ?

Your videos are inconclusive and your analysis is wrong (IMO). You can believe whatever you choose to believe personally, but to me you do not show proof of anything that requires an exotic explanation...
 
"Chem" "fallout" ? Your videos are inconclusive and your analysis is wrong (IMO). You can believe whatever you choose to believe personally, but to me you do not show proof of anything that requires an exotic explanation...
SIGH.. OK.. How many of these "orb videos do you wish to see? ... I have all day... Keep posting guys, you are ONLY PROVING ME RIGHT
 
There are many old videos and articles out there explaining how many "orbs" have been debunked over the years. Your videos have just been debunked and added to that growing list...
 
orbs appear to be the same type photographic phenomenon as rods, and until someone can get good photos, nothing can be claimed about them. There are serious photgraphers out there, but they are not taking photos of orbs or running around with hair on fire about them, just as serious contrail photographers aren't running around screaming about chemtrails. Contrailspotters have focused their tech on getting superbly clear imagery of near mach speed events at distances many miles away to reveal the exact identity of what is a mere orb to the eye. Until orb believers apply the same rigor to their quarry, they will remain unable to prove much about their claims.

http://www.luchtzak.be/forums/viewforum.php?f=25
 
orbs appear to be the same type photographic phenomenon as rods, and until someone can get good photos, nothing can be claimed about them. There are serious photgraphers out there, but they are not taking photos of orbs or running around with hair on fire about them, just as serious contrail photographers aren't running around screaming about chemtrails. Contrailspotters have focused their tech on getting superbly clear imagery of near mach speed events at distances many miles away to reveal the exact identity of what is a mere orb to the eye. Until orb believers apply the same rigor to their quarry, they will remain unable to prove much about their claims. http://www.luchtzak.be/forums/viewforum.php?f=25
The fact remains.. you CANNOT debunk these orbs
 
"orbs appear to be the same type photographic phenomenon as rods," Read the posts Note 2 This video was recorded @ 30 fps F5.6 - 250th sec fast enough to rule out digital tricks like RODs ... SIGH
 
"we" are "pathetic" Jay...?

This is for UFO discussion, I am not interested in weird and wacky UFO claims, and even if were I would not discuss them in a chemtrail thread.
 
I'm going to collect all the CT orb videos i can. And then post them... we will let the public decide whether or not ALL these objects are BIRDS/OUT OF FOCUS.. or other ENTITIES
 
"we" are "pathetic" Jay...? This is for UFO discussion, I am not interested in weird and wacky UFO claims, and even if were I would not discuss them in a chemtrail thread.
Even when they are centered around supposed "Chem/CON trails? OK then.. i was informed this was a discussion forum about Chem/CON trails... forgive me
 
"The fact remains that you have no facts to base any claims upon"

Really? All the orb evidence on these YOUTUBE videos would suggest otherwise...
 
"Evidence" on youtube videos... :eek:


I will point out another option: That it would take a minute or two to add an "orb" to a contrail video using Adobe after effects or similar...

Once the altitude issue was removed from the OP video - what else was there left to debunk?
 
I will point out another option: That it would take a minute or two to add an "orb" to a contrail video using Adobe after effects or similar...

Once the altitude issue was removed from the OP video - what else was there left to debunk?

Ahhh.. good old adobe... nope.. no such shit here I'm afraid
 
The SIMPLE FUCKING FACT is that you shill bags cannot debunk these orbs... it's all quite fucking obvious You can spew ALL the BULLSHIT in the world you want about out of focus, birds, Rayleigh scattering and any other bullshit you can manage to type BUT the FACT remains... these orbs CANNOT be debunked. How many other videos do you want me to post?

Ultimately, as Carl Sagan would say, extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.

You have the burden of proof. If you're claiming your video contains something other than what you would find in the known world, you have the burden to prove it.

You're demanding people prove a negative. I can't prove i DIDN'T steal a car last night. In your book, i stole a car last night.
 
SIGH.. OK.. How many of these "orb videos do you wish to see? ... I have all day... Keep posting guys, you are ONLY PROVING ME RIGHT

Posting additional videos of ignorant people filming bugs, birds, dust and balloons doesn't make you a brilliant discoverer.
 
I'm going to collect all the CT orb videos i can. And then post them... we will let the public decide whether or not ALL these objects are BIRDS/OUT OF FOCUS.. or other ENTITIES

Go for it. I think you should spend the next 10 years scouring the web for orb videos and compiling them into a comprehensive guide to the hidden world of UFOs, Secret Societies and conspiracys. You're on to something. Run with it. Go!
 
"I'm going to collect all the CT orb videos i can. And then post them... we will let the public decide whether or not ALL these objects are BIRDS/OUT OF FOCUS.. or other ENTITIES"

If you collect them from youtube, like all the previous one's you have posted, then they are already available to the public. Will showing them twice make them any more useful as "evidence" ??
 
I think Debunk this simply doesn't know what debunking is - he seems to think that debunking means knowing exactly what something is, which is, of course, not the case at all.

Debunk this - you might find it less frustrating if yuo read this - https://www.metabunk.org/content/129-A-Guide-to-Debunking

Personally I am quite comfortable debunking something and yet not knowing what it is - pointing out why it is not necessarily what it is claimed to be by otehrs is also debunking.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Correct, we can not debunk an orb, because its not even defined what an "orb" is. Is an Orb some indistinguishable, out of focus dot or object, in a youtube video?

Well sure then, Orbs exist I suppose.
 
Yeah, saying that you can't identify something does not mean its something significant.

Orbs are interesting though, and could do with an "debunked: white orbs" that explains, with examples, how the various images and video come about.
 
Various paranormal sites do a good job of identifying dust orbs, and explaining to their followers why not to get excited about them.
 
No one else seems bothered by them in the least, so no-one seems to have done a "how/where/why" piece on the 'net that I can see.
 
Back
Top