MicrostockGroup Sponsors
This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.
Messages - Lowls
Pages: [1] 2 3 4 5 6 ... 18
1
« on: March 25, 2024, 05:09 »
Here are the facts.
A newly published government report states that not only is there no proof of any secret effort by the U.S. government to cooperate with aliens or research alien technology, there is no proof that UFO sightings are the result of extraterrestrial visitations to Earth. The Report on the Historical Record of U.S. Government Involvement with Unidentified Anomalous Phenomena (UAP), written by the All-Domain Anomaly Resolution Office, denies all claims regarding the U.S. government and UFOs, stating that they are the result of decreased public trust in government, the prevalence of UFOs in public culture, and unnecessary government secrecy. https://www.popularmechanics.com/military/aviation/a60165911/pentagon-ufo-report/
Incorrect. The report was written by Sean Kirkpatrick and Sean Kirpatrick has lied demonstrably. He states that the narrative has been led by a core of ufologists who have deveieved Congress for its own ends. This is not true. Danny Sheehan represents 45 whistle blowers who contacted AARO and gave evidence under extremely unscientific and non-evidentiary conditions (phone interview with no recordings made of the interview just notes taken by a interviewer). These interviews produced no further investigation of the details given. This has also been revealed. Sean Kirkpatrick called some organisations within the ICIG framework and asked if they had anything and he was told no. This concluded his investigations. To post what you have and hold it up as evidence is frankly hilarious, disingenuous, and patently wrong. It is widely known across the ICIG, Congress and the wider inteliegence world and ufology that the report is only good for wiping your arse with. That's not a hope, a belief, a claim or anything else. It is factually, provably incorrect containing demonstrably false statements. It was late, it was rushed and it has a get out of jail free clause that states " if any of the information contained here is incorrect we reserve the right to amend it at a future date". Claims that UFOlogists attempted to break into Kirkpatricks home and caused great alarm have been debunked and were fact checked to show that 'a' ufologist knocked at his door to speak to him. You should research more and stop posting biased, contextually incorrect statements which are anything but "the facts" You can claim otherwise if you wish and call Danny Sheehan a liar publicly ...
2
« on: March 15, 2024, 18:31 »
A STANDARD IMAGE LICENSE grants you the right to use Images:
Printed in physical form as part of product packaging and labeling, letterhead and business cards, point of sale advertising, CD and DVD cover art, or in the advertising and copy of tangible media, including magazines, newspapers, and books provided no Image is reproduced more than 500,000 times in the aggregate
https://www.shutterstock.com/license
Thanks Alex you're always there ready with the answer so thank you.
3
« on: March 14, 2024, 14:47 »
Im sorry to hear that. But stock agencies have no way to track and monitor how our works are used. So, no surprise.
I have and its extensive lol. Pages of results. But because SS are so obtuse about license fees is $1.88 legitimate in anyone's experience or would you expect a different amount.
4
« on: March 14, 2024, 14:37 »
... and for that honour I was paid $1.88
I didn't know it was for a book cover I only found it some time later. A couple of years on and the image is now everywhere. Ebay, amazon, Waterstones and pretty much every book site of any size as well as on book review sites and ... well you can imagine.
Now listening tonight to a legal channel they got onto copywrite law and useage of images and licensed images are usually only permitted one use and that's the use they were purchased for apparently. A website an article etc but I do know with regard to distribution SS stated that a run can be ... half a million copies is it now not sure.
So if at all, where do we think we stand atm I'm curious.
5
« on: March 13, 2024, 04:34 »
6
« on: March 13, 2024, 04:19 »
Adobe might have over 1 million registered producers. There is no way to offer individual personal service.
High end agencies offer that, but they just work with a few thousand people.
Just add it to the community channel, here are also Adobe admins reading there. If they find the problem interesting I am sure someone will look into it.
And you can also write to Mat, but I would try the community channel first.
I disagree with the personal service aspect, when you consider the massive revenue they generate. Of COURSE they can offer it, but they may choose not to because "investors" want more $$$ in their pockets.
You really want Adobe to hire 2000 people just to deal with all the complaints "why was my file declined"?? It will be by far the most abused system ever.
I'd rather they put that money into the sales team.
You can post your problems in the community chat and get quick and qualified feedback. And you can write to Mat if you believe it is very serious.
Adobe is a lo more responsive than other places.
I don't get why people expect the luxury treatment on a mass platform.
Sign up with a small exclusive agency and you will get all the direct communication you ever wanted.
There are always choices.
Why do you assume your job is to go around on the forum telling people off. You're literally a nobody and yet ... kinda all you do. No one asked you to no one sanctions it, you just do it because you expect you're permitted to. You haven't helped the poster or furthered knowledge. Why don't you just think about that for a little while. For the OP I have used this email to resolve a similar issue [email protected] not sure if it's still active but give it a go.
7
« on: March 10, 2024, 16:31 »
Disclosure has been dealt a blow by ex head of AARO in his leaving report for historic reporting on UAP - Sean Kirkpatrick states in summery " its all fake and misidetification brewed up by a select few to hoodwink the government"
and the response https://www.youtube.com/live/Vw_uTkRe8rI?feature=shared
the report itself is much more measured though surely a disappointment to true believers - it said there was no evidence of extraterrestrials nor of crashed ships and that testimony from 'experts 'lacked actual corroboration from physical evidence or others and was often hearsay or worse ("a friend of a friend knows somebody...") they also discuss interpretation of various recording purporting to defynphysics and show errors in their analysis.
conclusion - still no there there.
agreed. But Kirkpatrick is gonna go to jail if he isn't careful. Congress is going to go after him.
8
« on: March 10, 2024, 12:55 »
Disclosure has been dealt a blow by ex head of AARO in his leaving report for historic reporting on UAP - Sean Kirkpatrick states in summery " its all fake and misidetification brewed up by a select few to hoodwink the government" and the response https://www.youtube.com/live/Vw_uTkRe8rI?feature=shared
9
« on: March 07, 2024, 02:50 »
and remember they want high quality images. So they can give them away free as part of an incentive package.
11
« on: February 15, 2024, 08:22 »
Already 27 pages in the topic. Can anyone answer whether UFOs and aliens exist or not?
Well don't forget that the original intention of this subject wasn't to discuss that it was a question of had anyone captured a UAP in their photography. Bit of fun. Coincidentally David Grusch arrived and the scenario changed radically. UAP - yes they do no idea what they are Aliens - yes they do. Are they here - jury is out at present.
12
« on: February 15, 2024, 05:55 »
What is going on? This is Mike Burlison 6 months ago after attending the UAP hearings https://youtu.be/SQxTnz4dQVM?feature=sharedThis is now. A quick snapshot interview with Matt Laslo I'm working on it. Right now, I've got something up my sleeve. I don't want to talk. Ill keep you informed, because I got a big thing that I'm gonna announce, @RepEricBurlison tells Ask a Pol. "UAP related? Yes. He was skeptical and facially he appeared to find the whole thing a bit silly. What has changed his mind and what is he going to announce? Kirkpatrick has literally destroyed the notion that UAPs even exist. He should know right?
13
« on: February 09, 2024, 13:58 »
14
« on: February 09, 2024, 05:12 »
15
« on: February 07, 2024, 10:42 »
We are writing to let you know about a pricing update for video content on Adobe Stock: 4K video clips will now be offered alongside HD clips for licensing as part of Adobe Stock subscriptions. This change will simplify the offering for Stock customers, allowing them to license HD and 4K video content as well as standard images, templates, 3D, and audio tracks using their subscriptions.
There is no change to the current royalty rate.
However, it's worth noting that per-video license royalty payments for 4K videos may see a reduction, as these videos will be available to subscription customers at varying discounts based on their plans. The existing Adobe Stock royalty rate (35%) remains consistent, calculated based on the price per clip. 4K video pricing remains unchanged for all on-demand clips and credit packs.
oh cool oh f f s
16
« on: February 06, 2024, 05:21 »
Sean Kirkpatrick who is supposed to be very careful about what he reveals regarding sensors and methods and means - has been on a whirlwind media tour and he has one thing to say- we found nothing. He spent a whole year looking and found nothing. The sponsor for some of it - Northrup and Lockhead Martin - you couldn't make it up. "Sean Kirptarick is a liar and there are FOIAble emails between Kirpatrick and various people, that exist. I know because I've seen them" https://youtu.be/mKKoDextN_I?feature=shared"Dr Kirkpatrick even suggested tic tac-shaped objects, such as the one which out-manoeuvred a top gun pilot in 2004 could be explained by a balloon produced in Florida." Kirkpatrick "discouraged congressional members from investigating UAP and claimed investigations informed by whistleblowers were based on a whirlwind of tall tales, fabrication and secondhand or thirdhand retellings of the same. https://www.liberationtimes.com/home/the-empire-strikes-back
17
« on: January 30, 2024, 17:48 »
brutal but is he wrong https://x.com/jamescfox/status/1752188569706242514?s=20Ah the link has been taken down. Professor Garry Nolan making his feelings about Neil D Tyson's opinions on UAP known. If I can find a saved copy I'll place link here.
18
« on: January 28, 2024, 14:13 »
While Mick West is still defending his balloon theory for the Jellyfish footage Dave Falch has stepped in to give his analysis.
Conclusion: Black DARPA craft undergoing testing and footage leaked.
https://youtu.be/S9qbB23BuhI?feature=shared
He does however explain what it's unlikely to be. Spoiler: No balloon animals
When you post stupid videos and allegations like this, you make yourself look like a fool. Giant jellyfish UFO. Looks like a deflated weather balloon, drifting in the wind. Stick to serious questions like Dod, disclosure and the oversite committee, not foolish sci-fi click bait.
It's just a weather balloon. UFO nuts make the ordinary into a mystery. They lack critical thinking of any kind.
Lowls, prove it's not just a weather balloon.
As I'm often reminded - you made the claim - have at it 😊 UFO nuts he said in a sweeping statement. And does sir or madame or they, have a feral belief system that you cling rigidly to. Licking some priests hand every weekend and choking back some hearty backswill filled goblet contents to rinse your chakras before returning to Satan's work or .... lol I mean if you are a happy clapping, Bible thumping, grovelling God botherer then I can understand if these false idols doth offend. But if you are just being lazy and adding your inconsequential 'meh' to the masses then job done you've 'meh'ed' successfully and can sleep soundly that you've told that loser on that thread that barely anyone will see. I mean I'd kind of like a bit more ... detail shall we say that we can't get our teeth stuck into but if that's what you came here to do, you've done it well and message recieved. It's bunkum and you know it.
19
« on: January 28, 2024, 12:56 »
20
« on: January 27, 2024, 16:56 »
Hahahahaha what is a "birther". I'm not going to even look that up it sounds annoying.
No the box experiment wasn't disingenuous at all and if you feel it was then you do 🤷 oh well. It showed exactly what the situation is. You a staunch stickler explained perfectly. Big Toe did as well . ...
thanks for a reasoned reply that addressed previous posts - as someone here would say "you must be inebriated"?!?
if you don't know what a birther is, you're lucky - it's a US political meme
Thank you also. I still don't know what a birther is and it's sounds like I should be grateful lol. Edit: I cracked and looked it up. Good grief 😔 I do not subscribe to birtherism.
21
« on: January 27, 2024, 13:05 »
While Mick West is still defending his balloon theory for the Jellyfish footage Dave Falch has stepped in to give his analysis.
Conclusion: Black DARPA craft undergoing testing and footage leaked.
https://youtu.be/S9qbB23BuhI?feature=shared
He does however explain what it's unlikely to be. Spoiler: No balloon animals
When you post stupid videos and allegations like this, you make yourself look like a fool. Giant jellyfish UFO. Looks like a deflated weather balloon, drifting in the wind. Stick to serious questions like Dod, disclosure and the oversite committee, not foolish sci-fi click bait.
Do you understand the use of the word allegation? The above statement points to no but I'm willing to give you the benefit of the doubt so you'll have to elaborate. Mick West has claimed exactly what I wrote. That's not an allegation that's a fact. If you believe with your expertise that it is a deflated weather balloon please show this is so. It looks nothing like a deflated weather balloon to me but as it is as yet an unknown we can't say for sure but please show the evidence for your assertions I'll pass them on. Fact - https://youtu.be/ojotsKjshHc?feature=sharedAnd he makes a glaring error. Also fact.
22
« on: January 27, 2024, 03:15 »
This is a photo of a box. As a layman's experiment tell me what I photographed.
What can science tell me about this box.
What can the scientific minds here tell me about the box I photographed.
I photographed it, therefore its on earth and contains oxygen, Co2 and Nitrogen.
I'm curious and have a purpose in this experiment. Nothing petty. I just want to see what you think.
not much, too little evidence among unverifiable claims - it's a brown, blurry image and with no scale it's just a series of unfocused, brownish polygons. without photos from several sides, can't even verify the claim it's a box.
even the photographer's claim 'it's on earth' cannot be verified. it could also be ai generated
Precisely and this is unfortunately where we are with UAP. Debunkers don't need to ask for more data. Skeptics don't tend to ask for more data. Science can't be given more data which it needs other than this photo which as you say shows nothing.
But you've excluded me from the equation.
...
Science would love to be given the freedom to examine UAP data. But it has to wait for it like all the rest of us.
of COURSE science (and skeptics) need more data, as you admit in the final sentence, hence their tentative conclusion:
whereof one cannot speak, thereof one must be silent. - Wittgenstein
simply put, you don't matter - you asked about the photo and the replies emphasized the need for more data, not your CV - examining you would be the argument from authority --"they're a military genius, therefore they must be right" - look where that's gotten us in the past - lies about CIA intervention in Iran in the 5s, and a host of other countries, the bay of pigs, the cuban missile crisis and most damaging the weapons of mass destruction in Iraq
Right but we can't get to the point where science can have more data because: There is no reliable repository therefore it all gets dumped on twitter, Facebook and utube. Once there it gets picked over by the Mick Wests and his ilk and tossed aside.
I wasn't offering a CV (slight exaggeration and neither was it about me but about witnesses)
and we don't need to place witness statements to the exclusion of all else, wr need to also have witness statements regardless of social position. All data is valid. Or none of it is. Witnesses give context. Witnesses correct assumptions. Witnesses may but only, may, be unreliable. Not all.
so your 'photo query' was disingenuous - you just used a pointless example to regurgitate your uninformed views of how science works and slime critics once more .
All data is valid. Or none of it is. - nonsense - are we supposed to include flat earthers, birthers, election or holocaust deniers in our considerations?
Your way is no longer working in this circumstance. If science knew anything, science would have built it already. It hasn't that we are aware of so any assumption it has is incorrect because that's all it is, is an assumption.
once again you expose your lack of understanding - it's not my way, altho my background in the sciences you don't get to make this silly declaration about science's end. according to you, since we didn't know about airplanes or telephones or computers we couldn't have made them.
it's again the opposite - science explores areas to expand its knowledge& new technologies often results.
science makes assumptions aka hypotheses, but that's only the beginning - it then performs experiments or looks for physical evidence to support or deny te hypothesis. UFOlogy has yet to creep up to this basic procedure
Hahahahaha what is a "birther". I'm not going to even look that up it sounds annoying. No the box experiment wasn't disingenuous at all and if you feel it was then you do 🤷 oh well. It showed exactly what the situation is. You a staunch stickler explained perfectly. Big Toe did as well . I haven't 'exposed' anything. This context comes from fighting or war where someone exposes a weakness. Lack of knowledge of a process isn't a weakness it is just a lack of knowledge. I don't have that knowledge but is that a weakness in your eyes? Odd. But of course irrelevant. It's knowledge I don't need. Oh to apparently hold credibility with you and your 'liker' yes but not in the real world. And by real world I mean what is happening now. "science makes assumptions aka hypotheses, but that's only the beginning - it then performs experiments or looks for physical evidence to support or deny te hypothesis" "not much, too little evidence among unverifiable claims - it's a brown, blurry image and with no scale it's just a series of unfocused, brownish polygons. without photos from several sides, can't even verify the claim it's a box." How did that work out for you? What you showed admirably was what happens to most data given to the public no matter its source. "Meh" lol. I'm not mocking you. I've had you prove an 'assumption'. Thank you. You don't have to believe it or agree - its what happened. The data won't even get to the second stage of your scientific process model because "meh" is what happens world wide online in the public eye. Not many scientists want to risk their position fighting against such assumptions by the masses of debunkers and skeptics and their following who to be fare sometimes show some plausable explanations or theories.
23
« on: January 26, 2024, 18:37 »
This is a photo of a box. As a layman's experiment tell me what I photographed.
What can science tell me about this box.
What can the scientific minds here tell me about the box I photographed.
I photographed it, therefore its on earth and contains oxygen, Co2 and Nitrogen.
I'm curious and have a purpose in this experiment. Nothing petty. I just want to see what you think.
not much, too little evidence among unverifiable claims - it's a brown, blurry image and with no scale it's just a series of unfocused, brownish polygons. without photos from several sides, can't even verify the claim it's a box.
even the photographer's claim 'it's on earth' cannot be verified. it could also be ai generated
Precisely and this is unfortunately where we are with UAP. Debunkers don't need to ask for more data. Skeptics don't tend to ask for more data. Science can't be given more data which it needs other than this photo which as you say shows nothing.
But you've excluded me from the equation.
...
Science would love to be given the freedom to examine UAP data. But it has to wait for it like all the rest of us.
of COURSE science (and skeptics) need more data, as you admit in the final sentence, hence their tentative conclusion:
whereof one cannot speak, thereof one must be silent. - Wittgenstein
simply put, you don't matter - you asked about the photo and the replies emphasized the need for more data, not your CV - examining you would be the argument from authority --"they're a military genius, therefore they must be right" - look where that's gotten us in the past - lies about CIA intervention in Iran in the 5s, and a host of other countries, the bay of pigs, the cuban missile crisis and most damaging the weapons of mass destruction in Iraq
Right but we can't get to the point where science can have more data because: There is no reliable repository therefore it all gets dumped on twitter, Facebook and utube. Once there it gets picked over by the Mick Wests and his ilk and tossed aside. I wasn't offering a CV (slight exaggeration and neither was it about me but about witnesses) and we don't need to place witness statements to the exclusion of all else, wr need to also have witness statements regardless of social position. All data is valid. Or none of it is. Witnesses give context. Witnesses correct assumptions. Witnesses may but only, may, be unreliable. Not all. Your way is no longer working in this circumstance. If science knew anything, science would have built it already. It hasn't that we are aware of so any assumption it has is incorrect because that's all it is, is an assumption. But someone has built it and its being seen with increasing regularity and governments are spending a lot of time, money and resources on something that isn't allegedly real. Kirkpatrick claims there is no evidence of extra terrestrial anything. Which is great. Why has AARO got new director. Why have the US government issued a statement yesturday stating they aren't doing enough to make our airspace more safe from UAP. Why did Senators Schumer and Rounds create a brutal amendment. Why are congressional members going to hold future UAP briefings once they have investigated the information divulged to them in the classified meeting last week. Why did they state that no one in that meeting was left in any doubt that Grusch wasn't legitimate. Surely this should die right now or in fact following Kirkpatricks misjudged oped. Why did Elizondo threaten Kirkpatrick that if you are not willing to tell the truth then we are. Elizondo has been a pain in the arse regarding openness. He never is. It's all duty and patriotism. What's happened to make him no longer care about that. It needs to be pushed kicking and screaming into the light no matter the cost. Because to not do so now when too much has been leaked would cause open rebellion in the Intelligence agencies and we all know what that looks like - Snowdon etc
24
« on: January 26, 2024, 11:13 »
Senator Gillibrand questioned by Askapol who the new director of AARO is and she sates that she asked AARO staffers whonit is and they didnt know. This appeared on their own website suddenly
Pages: [1] 2 3 4 5 6 ... 18
|
Sponsors
Microstock Poll Results
Sponsors
|