[su30mki117]

If you cannot take a convincing photo of the moon, you should stop talking about UFOs and instead focus on learning to take a convincing photo of the moon. I hope you get the point. This is not an attempt to ridicule you, just pointing out the amount of ridiculousness in your post.

[woodruffn]

Ok, so I've taken one crisp clear photo of the moon through a friends telescope they let me borrow and I did it with my iPhone. It took 30 minutes to set up and calibrate, I had to position it on the moon, and keep adjusting the tracking. I'm sure 99% of the population has never done this. When I say I can't take a convincing photo of the moon I mean that if I had to capture an event that only lasted 7 seconds and it was the size of the moon; the photo would be a white dot on a black background. You sound like you need to diagnosed if you think I'm not allowed to talk about an experience because I didn't take a picture for you.

[boatman_]

Maybe you should enlighten us with examples and procedures.

[su30mki117]

Examples and procedures to take a convincing photo of the moon - you need google and some money for the equipment.

Examples and procedures to take a convincing photo of an erratically moving UFO - I don't claim I have the know-how. All I know is the evidence has to be high quality and irrefutable to make such a claim. My point is, people should not be talking about phenomena they don't understand as if they are true, if they have no skills to gather required evidence.

[woodruffn]

> the evidence has to be high quality and irrefutable

Please provide an annotated list of irrefutable evidence that others have created so I can see what you are talking about...

Edit: actually if I were to meet you in real life you could just ask my wife about the incident. She hates the fact that she saw it too: I used to talk about this stuff but backed off in recent years. Because she was there it validated the fact that there is some type of conspiracy in the world. We don't know the exact details of the conspiracy but something is definitely not as it seems when a silent triangle rips across the night sky.

Edit2: a simple google search and the second video appears to be what I saw. It's going much slower but the light pattern and altitude are what I remember. Watch the whole video - the first lights are just a plane https://youtu.be/RoR0izkByAI

[ncmncm]

A conspiracy is collusion to violate a law. No violation, no conspiracy.

[woodruffn]

Hi politics bot, thanks for defining this in presidential terms.

Let's just call it a conspiracy theory then.

[ncmncm]

Again: For it to be conspiracy, there must be violation of law. A "conspiracy theory" needs a law violated, at least in theory. Keeping or sharing secrets does not violate law -- unless the secrets are about violations of law.

Is this really difficult? Nixon had a conspiracy both to violate laws, and to cover up violating laws, making at least three violations. Trump's people probably conspired to violate laws against foreign influence on elections. Clinton didn't conspire to perjure, because it was just him.

[chadwittman]

Dude. What?