Dubstepforum.com

hackman wrote:why always the face then?

and certain people, not others?

It happens to her hair and dress

james fox wrote:
i can't prove that there is not a 200 foot platinum statue of noel edmonds in the marianas trench that controls my thoughts, does that make it plausible?

Could be. Nothing to disprove it.

Motorway to Roswell wrote:Could be.

surely something is either plausible or it is not

you really think it is plausible that there is a vast metallic bearded tv presenter controlling my mind from 11 kilometers beneath the pacific ocean?!

maybe it's true, i have been unusually compelled to buy ugly sweaters and cover people in 'gunge' recently

james fox wrote:

Motorway to Roswell wrote:Could be.

surely something is either plausible or it is not

you really think it is plausible that there is a vast metallic bearded tv presenter controlling my mind from 11 kilometers beneath the pacific ocean?!

maybe it's true, i have been unusually compelled to buy ugly sweaters and cover people in 'gunge' recently

Well we can't prove anything so everything is valid.

Motorway to Roswell wrote:

james fox wrote:

Motorway to Roswell wrote:Could be.

surely something is either plausible or it is not

you really think it is plausible that there is a vast metallic bearded tv presenter controlling my mind from 11 kilometers beneath the pacific ocean?!

maybe it's true, i have been unusually compelled to buy ugly sweaters and cover people in 'gunge' recently

Well we can't prove anything so everything is valid.

Why even have an opinion on anything then?

I think it's more a case of levels of plausibilty. Some things are more plausible than others.
It is more plausible that there is not a 200 foot platinum statue of noel edmonds in the marianas trench that controls James Fox's thoughts than there actually being a 200 foot platinum statue of noel edmonds in the marianas trench that controls James Fox's thoughts.
Like it's more plausible that a 2nd transcode of ripped TV footage upped to Youtube would be the cause of visual digital distortion than the idea that the news anchor is not human and cannot control her disguise well enough so the producers shout at her (because they aren't human either???)? WTF?

SUCH INSANITY

lloydnoise wrote:

Motorway to Roswell wrote:

james fox wrote:

Motorway to Roswell wrote:Could be.

surely something is either plausible or it is not

you really think it is plausible that there is a vast metallic bearded tv presenter controlling my mind from 11 kilometers beneath the pacific ocean?!

maybe it's true, i have been unusually compelled to buy ugly sweaters and cover people in 'gunge' recently

Well we can't prove anything so everything is valid.

Why even have an opinion on anything then?

I think it's more a case of levels of plausibilty. Some things are more plausible than others.
It is more plausible that there is not a 200 foot platinum statue of noel edmonds in the marianas trench that controls James Fox's thoughts than there actually being a 200 foot platinum statue of noel edmonds in the marianas trench that controls James Fox's thoughts.
Like it's more plausible that a 2nd transcode of ripped TV footage upped to Youtube would be the cause of visual digital distortion than the idea that the news anchor is not human and cannot control her disguise well enough so the producers shout at her (because they aren't human either???)? WTF?

SUCH INSANITY

You can't not have an opinion.

Motorway to Roswell wrote:

james fox wrote:

Motorway to Roswell wrote:Could be.

surely something is either plausible or it is not

It's also plausible that it's neither.

you need to qualify those two statements a bit more really; otherwise you could well be accused of concealing a lack of point behind quasi-philosophical gnomic statements that are designed to tie me / us in logical gordian knots

james fox wrote:you need to qualify those two statements a bit more really; otherwise you could well be accused of concealing a lack of point behind quasi-philosophical gnomic statements that are designed to tie me / us in logical gordian knots

Qualify in what way?

We can't prove anything so anything could be possible since there is nothing that proves or disproves anything.

haha this thread is funny

guys until you can prove something you cannot say one hypothesis is more likely

especially given the fact you take the foundation of your facts about the world as a given....when they really aren't and to use the cliche which no doubt will cause a hilarious response probably involving lizards...you have been brainwashed

Motorway to Roswell wrote:

james fox wrote:you need to qualify those two statements a bit more really; otherwise you could well be accused of concealing a lack of point behind quasi-philosophical gnomic statements that are designed to tie me / us in logical gordian knots

Qualify in what way?

We can't prove anything so anything could be possible since there is nothing that proves or disproves anything.

he's only asking you to validate what you said because it literally makes no sense but if your viewpoint is that nothing can be proven then you can't do that. so just stop typing mate

lloydnoise wrote:

Motorway to Roswell wrote:

james fox wrote:you need to qualify those two statements a bit more really; otherwise you could well be accused of concealing a lack of point behind quasi-philosophical gnomic statements that are designed to tie me / us in logical gordian knots

Qualify in what way?

We can't prove anything so anything could be possible since there is nothing that proves or disproves anything.

he's only asking you to validate what you said because it literally makes no sense but if your viewpoint is that nothing can be proven then you can't do that. so just stop typing mate

It makes perfect sense.

Motorway to Roswell wrote:

lloydnoise wrote:

Motorway to Roswell wrote:

james fox wrote:you need to qualify those two statements a bit more really; otherwise you could well be accused of concealing a lack of point behind quasi-philosophical gnomic statements that are designed to tie me / us in logical gordian knots

Qualify in what way?

We can't prove anything so anything could be possible since there is nothing that proves or disproves anything.

he's only asking you to validate what you said because it literally makes no sense but if your viewpoint is that nothing can be proven then you can't do that. so just stop typing mate

It makes perfect sense.

it does...strange how some people can see that and other 'intelligent' people just cannot

should be easy to explain then!

also, i think you need to be more aware of the difference between plausible and possible.

tbh i think you are concealing a lack of point behind quasi-philosophical gnomic statements that are designed to tie me / us in logical gordian knots.

(re-edited)

james fox wrote:should be easy to explain then!

also, i think you need to be more aware of the difference between plausible and possible.

tbh i think you are concealing a lack of point behind quasi-philosophical gnomic statements that are designed to tie me / us in logical gordian knots.

I understand plausible to mean valid and reasonable.

Of course there is a lack of point, no one knows the point to anything.

My point is a paradox since the point is that that no one knows.

Pistonsbeneath wrote:haha this thread i funny

guys until you can prove something you cannot say one hypothesis is more likely

especially given the fact you take the foundation of your facts about the world as a given....when they really aren't and to use the cliche which no doubt will cause a hilarious response probably involving lizards...you have been brainwashed

Video issues VS Malfunctioning alien disguise...

okay, sometimes you guys seem intelligent and sometimes you try to be so open minded it just becomes absurdly moronic.
Watch the video again, around 1.35 her entire face and dress has been affected by the decode error as the movement is not enough to reset the frames, however she then moves her left arm around to gesticulate at about 1.40 she 'wipes' the area (around her left tit) and it is immediately cleared. In fact her left forearm never distorts because she moves it alot.
I feel slightly embarassed for some of you guys that this has to be pointed out...

again
Video issues VS Malfunctioning alien disguise...

Really??????

lloydnoise wrote:

Pistonsbeneath wrote:haha this thread i funny

guys until you can prove something you cannot say one hypothesis is more likely

especially given the fact you take the foundation of your facts about the world as a given....when they really aren't and to use the cliche which no doubt will cause a hilarious response probably involving lizards...you have been brainwashed

Video issues VS Malfunctioning alien disguise...

okay, sometimes you guys seem intelligent and sometimes you try to be so open minded it just becomes absurdly moronic.
Watch the video again, around 1.35 her entire face and dress has been affected by the decode error as the movement is not enough to reset the frames, however she then moves her left arm around to gesticulate at about 1.40 she 'wipes' the area (around her left tit) and it is immediately cleared. In fact her left forearm never distorts because she moves it alot.
I feel slightly embarassed for some of you guys that this has to be pointed out...

again
Video issues VS Malfunctioning alien disguise...

Really??????

I don't think that video shows reptillians. It does just look like video issues or a fake but who knows.

Motorway to Roswell wrote:

james fox wrote:should be easy to explain then!

also, i think you need to be more aware of the difference between plausible and possible.

tbh i think you are concealing a lack of point behind quasi-philosophical gnomic statements that are designed to tie me / us in logical gordian knots.

I understand plausible to mean valid and reasonable.

Of course there is a lack of point, no one knows the point to anything.

My point is a paradox since the point is that that no one knows.

so, in summary, your point is that you have no point...?

finally, we agree!

james fox wrote:

Motorway to Roswell wrote:

james fox wrote:should be easy to explain then!

also, i think you need to be more aware of the difference between plausible and possible.

tbh i think you are concealing a lack of point behind quasi-philosophical gnomic statements that are designed to tie me / us in logical gordian knots.

I understand plausible to mean valid and reasonable.

Of course there is a lack of point, no one knows the point to anything.

My point is a paradox since the point is that that no one knows.

so, in summary, your point is that you have no point...?

finally, we agree!

My point is that no one has a point including me and that we have no real proof for anything so there's no way we can truly doubt or believe anything.

lloydnoise wrote:

Pistonsbeneath wrote:haha this thread i funny

guys until you can prove something you cannot say one hypothesis is more likely

especially given the fact you take the foundation of your facts about the world as a given....when they really aren't and to use the cliche which no doubt will cause a hilarious response probably involving lizards...you have been brainwashed

Video issues VS Malfunctioning alien disguise...

okay, sometimes you guys seem intelligent and sometimes you try to be so open minded it just becomes absurdly moronic.
Watch the video again, around 1.35 her entire face and dress has been affected by the decode error as the movement is not enough to reset the frames, however she then moves her left arm around to gesticulate at about 1.40 she 'wipes' the area (around her left tit) and it is immediately cleared. In fact her left forearm never distorts because she moves it alot.
I feel slightly embarassed for some of you guys that this has to be pointed out...

again
Video issues VS Malfunctioning alien disguise...

Really??????

sure

and your 'evidence' is hardly conclusive of the former either.....imho you look at things with a very rigid mind.....you cannot see this because of that fact