How about a thread for all the "woo-head" clickbait youtube fodder that gets spammed so much these days, is there any credence to it?
Giants/Nephilim
Documentaries:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WrL68FXTYCQ
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6jx3vVSSfEs
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JC-Fa7Uy7vI
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6jx3vVSSfEs
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_d5oJsprjhM
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w8SZ5ekPBXI
Dead Sea Scrolls: Book of Giants:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xJDKl8lRhuU
Sardinia Giants:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S-RL-BxO7Xk
Entrance to Hyperborea:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vCDs8x5FNI4
Giants of Romania:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6sP-QF21rSM
Giants of Georgia:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0eI0FOG8Kl4
Native American Giants:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6Y2eUUdcu2E
Giants of Wisconsin:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mOyozUUZpnY
Horned Skulls of Pennsylvania:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hKQ48yKRa8A
Giants of Pittsburgh
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S_Bw6hgnLcA
Story of the Giants:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WfWe7c_pj-U
Subterranean Cities of Giants in North America:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r7jJi3ymp7Y
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FDcPAg8afKM
Lost City of Giants in Ecuador
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LrSnofw2NXE
Crown of Giants
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s8DBNibmCzQ
Enormous tools of the Giants:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hThi6GXkdTg
Trace Evidence:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pVrmqMp4BxM
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CIPQr-6zM0w
>>17855530
Red Haired Giants of Lovelock Cave"
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Rg8a2baHNaI
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=12lIyxaJyb8
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h-eyVQz2g_U
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I4edpCRFex8
Hollow Earth
Documentaries:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NiIWMmRkOok
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RaPtq8F2hUc
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q6EOvJDxt1k
Nasa Images / Cover up:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ap2Kgglzeec
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LIYJAcib1iQ
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r1PVPpbH0hE
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VyZHl9aRgz4
Google Earth:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FtkumaXuAKw
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jOTLnnUo4F0
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OnxbAuyFF3c
Traveler to Inner Earth:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rslkcoD22aY
Podcast:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=egT1kl_mAeE
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ypt6iJWlMJc
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Wr4GWorJqRE
>>17855576
I wish hollow earth was real. It's something I used to fantasize about when I was a kid.
>>17855606
Yeah I know, but conspiracy theories can't even keep their facts strait on what they're claiming so it's very much something has yet to be homogenized by popular culture like Bigfoot, Gray Aliens, Dogmen and so on and so forth.
What are people's thoughts about areas of Google Earth being blurred or images of Mars and the Moon being blurred?
>>17856045
You can request to have your house removed from maps/street view/Earth
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/07/07/remove-google-street-view_n_5563939.html
>>17855536
WTF is he wearing? The breachcloths the natives wore were a single strip of fabric or leather passed between the legs and supported by a belt everything would be covered thusly
>>17855528
>is there any credence to it?
Yes. There is exactly as much credence to it as there is credence to any other scientific hypothesis that seeks to explain reality. It's just as relevant as modern day quantum theory.
>>17856142
to what exactly?
>>17856384
Any of it. Anyone can form a hypothesis about the underbelly of reality. None will ever be provable.
>>17856390
>None will ever be provable
Thats sort of a prerequisite for having a scientific theory.
And of course there is more credence to "Newton's laws of motion" than there is to "ancient aliens"
>>17856466
It used to be, up until science got it in its head that you can know the unknowable nature of reality itself. The reason Newton's work had more credence was because it wasn't just some shit he dreamed up some day. He did actually test his hypothesis in a certain sense. People who peruse over everything everyone else has written without actually going outside to check if any of it actually hold true to reality are NOT doing science. Science is more than mere interpretation and research.
A lot of fringe science comes from actually testing shit, not just reading about it online.
>>17856498
ah. so I think you mean quantum mechanics?
Fair enough, since there is barely a consensus about this in scientific community and most people will agree that there are too many questions open.
Or take "string theory" for example, it is pretty much pseudo science
>>17856045
Either privacy requests, or where Google's satellites have returned poor quality images.
>>17856647
>poor quality images
How do you know when there's a flaw in a photo if you have no other photos to compare it with?
>>17856657
>visible changes in clarity at a given distance
>cloud cover obscuring the ground
>dirt on lens
>aliens in frame
Don't know much about photography, eh?
>>17856682
>aliens in frame
>has alien life
>must be wrong
>blur that shit
I hope this isn't your actual reasoning and that it was ultimately my decision to take the bait.
>>17856718
Reeled you in no problem, anon
>>17856657
If you see a picture of a person that has a mosaic censor of his face, how do you know it's a mosaic filter and not just a horrible freak birth defect?
>>17856732
Just want to point out the list of accurate reasons doesn't refute the possibility of inaccurate reasons and blatant censorship. There can be as many disparate motives as there are blurred photos.
(Mostly talking about photos of space here.)
>>17856755
Physics, but before you snipe off about "well we know it can't be ET because physics tells us so," no, actually, physics doesn't tell us shit about how life might have evolved elsewhere in the universe. Solve the Drake equation before you insist that we know shit about ET.
>>17856789
All you asked about was flaws in photos. The other anon covered the rest.
>>17856805
We're not talking about E.T.'s We're talking about blurry photos. You know they're blurry because they're blurry, if they weren't blurry you'd see what was there, in high resolution, regardless of what it is.
>>17856805
>physics doesn't tell us shit about how life might have evolved elsewhere in the universe
thats not entirely true. while evolution on other planets might "come up" with extremely weird lifeforms, it still would have to follow basic rules
>>17855616
Dogmen?
>>17856045
They also blur out military installations.
>>17856834
One teen's attempt at trending a new cryptid of the month
>>17856821
This anon: >>17856045
>images of Mars and the Moon being blurred?
Meant it in the "wasn't originally blurry, but was blurred after the fact" sense.
>>17856834
tl;dr a number of travelogues, accounts, myths, and stories from a number of unrelated people and cultures have mentione a mountain-dwelling tribe of dog-headed people in India, dating back to the Hellenistic era.
>>17856853
*mentioned
>>17856841
Loup Garou / Dogman / Beast of Bray Road has been around for a long while before those faggy ass girly vampire werewolf books. Look up the recent flap in Pennsylvania.
>>17856853
oh thx, haven't heard that one before.
Nobody mentioned chem trails yet?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IqATQtwOY34
Who /TerenceMcKenna/ here? Don't take what he says too seriously, but I think they're interesting thought experiments. Dude thought psilocybin mushrooms could possibly be alien probes, and the act of consuming them sends some kind of subspace signal to the original civilization alerting them of intelligence.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ljy3TH1T0jk
>>17856848
>it was blurred after the fact
In that case it would be the privacy issue.
>>17856857
I didn't say "creating", I said "trending".
>>17856872
There are no fucking privacy issues on the moon unless NASA has literally had enough contact with ET to agree to protect their privacy.
>>17856909
what the fuck are you even talking about
>>17857023
In otherwords there's no reason to have censored blurred images on areas in the deep ocean or moon unless it's a government agency requesting it.
>>17857273
Well, maybe. But can you give examples?
I have a moon atlas, that I frequently use and I have yet to see a spot that is particular blurry.
"Flat Earth" counts as this, right?
>>17857273
They didn't censor any blurred images of the moon or deep ocean. If it's of the moon, it's the later case where they never got a good image in the first place.
>>17855528
its value is thet they spawn entertaining debunking videos.
>>17857912
yes
>>17857912
>science
>credence
LMAO!!!
>>17857273
Or, you know, the image was blurry, because it was taken by a satellite with a lower resolution or is on a spot where they stitched the photomosaic together.
Could you show any examples? (Please no YouTube videos, I'm on mobile)
>>17856805
>solve the Drake equation
>solve
lel
