Film of abduction taking place?

Posts: 55
Joined: Thu Mar 03, 2011 12:19 am

PostSun Apr 03, 2011 5:47 am » by Ftt0024

cosmicdave wrote:Whether I went over to Nicaragua or not, I was the first person on this side of the pond to investigate it - in fact, as far as I am aware nobody else did.

'Official' reports go against witness statements all the time - I thought you would be aware of that if you are interested in UFOs. And despite whatever those scientists claimed, anyone with 2 eyes can see the differences between the 2 corpses. How can a dead animal all of a sudden grow back a leg in the lab?

The big problem here as I have seen so many times is that people are impatient. They want the whole story and they want it this second. It doesn't matter if this has just been released and most probably other people will come forward to help with the investigation.

No... it hasn't been analysed so it has to be fake. The truth is, you haven't given us enough time to get it analysed.

Do you know how long it took the Alien Autopsy footage to be analysed? It never was because Santilli refused to give any of the footage away. None with any frames on it anyway.

So its not a case of us being scammers - hell, if that were the case then we would turn our site into a subscription based one, just like so many others do and actually charge you to see the footage.

We are not charging anyone for the footage and in fact are going in the other direction to stop people making money from it - so how does that make us scammers?

Dave I feel bad for you and the way you have been attacked. This website really wasn't a good idea to show people that footage., as your probably finding out. There's some good topics on here but there are a select few that just ruin the discussions. I don't know if that abduction is legit or not. It's hard to believe it just based off watching the video. But as Ive stated before, you seemed like a credible person, so I hope you can get the money to get the video analyzed and I'm interested to see some more evidence in the future. Good luck to you.
Follow the Truth -- Open your eyes, do your research, and start to prepare

Posts: 20
Joined: Sat Apr 02, 2011 5:53 pm

PostSun Apr 03, 2011 11:55 am » by Littlegreys

im so glad you brought up the Jerusalem footage Mufon has just came out this morning and said its genuine ... munication

Posts: 67
Joined: Thu Mar 31, 2011 12:55 pm

PostSun Apr 03, 2011 12:22 pm » by Cosmicdave

punjedi wrote:Ok, I shut up for a while and let you guys talk. Well, Gius ream, and you guys try and defend.

Here is what I get from this.

1. You claim it is proof of Alien Abduction. Ok let's look at that simply for what it is.

Where is the alien? How can you determine from a grainy footage shot ? (REGARDLESS of her story). We don't have the interview, as you put it. You weren't going to shove cameras and recorders in her face.

Right, that is what the paparazzi does. A journalist informs the person well in advance what an interview entails. Beyond any of that, YOU RECORD IT!!!

You mean to tell me in a 3 hour interview with this woman obviously going on and on about the incident, that you were able to capture all the info on pen and paper?

Let's add to that the family story. Let's not forget the only thing the husband and children had to go on was HER story, and the one video. They weren't aware of anything going on until SHE put that inception in their head. Don't stand there and tell me a family wont stick together for a crazy ideal such as abduction. Now, I will be fair and assume they all believe this story.

Let's move on.

Now, let's move to the footage itself again. All it shows, is a woman vanishing (somewhat hesitantly, which you never addressed) from under a blanket. That is it.

There is NOTHING indicating any alien presence. No sound save for her husband, no anomaly, no artifacts. Just a straight CCTV cam shot of a woman vanishing.

Yes, that in itself is pretty darn cool. But to say it is proof. Proof of alien abduction is a stretch.

I am not going to call you a hoaxer or a scammer. I think of you guys as a slightly different breed.

I call it "sensationalist". Let me explain.

You have now used 3 of the most DEPLORABLE examples of proof that one could ever run into.

1. Chupacabra. I am of mexican descent. I can tell you with a very straight face, those people will believe ANYTHING. As I have said before, do NOT believe anything from Mexico, Brazil, Or Russa!

Why? One name. Jaime Mausson. That piece of work has been spreading hispanic filth since day one! The spanish people are a VERY superstitious lot. You can show them a skeleton of a lizard and tell them it's a small diablo, and they will not only believe it. They run it in their top news feeds!

2. Jerusalem UFO. The fact that you even TRY to give any validity to this very obvious hoax tells me a lot.

A. You are incapable of being able to determine video and tracking errors as well as
B. Totally disregard the very hard and real work (that was pointless really) in showing how these videos are not only fake, but BAD fakes. Some of that said work having been done by myself. I even recreated (poorly, for obvious reasons) the second video using the same exact background image.

I also explained the VERY obvious flaws in lighting, matching, distance and parallax, as well as the very obvious point of thousand of visitors to Dome of the Rock, and only a couple of witnesses that refuse to come forward save for a cowardly You tube response.

C. That you stand up here and say "proof, proof, proof" and then turn around and say...

"we wont give you access, because we don't have it/ we can't get it/ we never had it."

"We did an interview but recorded none of it"

"She is in fear for her life, but she contacted other sites/locations before coming to us"

"We are not going to give you the names of the companies that requested footage"

"We will not even try and address the fact that all you have is our word and a grainy shot"

Now, I want you Dave or Grey. To answer every single one of these points that I have brought up.

If you falter, or sidestep, or just try and push my own Faith back in my face, we will all know exactly where you stand.

Now you have an opportunity to address some very real statements.

No harshin, no bashin, just laying it all out there.


Now this is more like it. Good questions that I will answer, posted in a cordial way.... right.

We had 95% of the detail already through the many emails that Sonia sent us on the lead up to the interview. During the interview (and with us being familiar with her claims) we posed many questions, some of which were 'leaders' to see if her story corresponded exactly with what she had already said. They did match 100%

I understand that her family did not see the abduction take place. But there are other factors that you have to take into consideration.

Firstly, remember that after the UFO encounter, her youngest daughter came into the bedroom saying that something was pulling her leg. Also remember that during the abduction Sonia also says that her leg was being pulled and that her older daughter was present.

We also have to consider the days between the first encounter and the abduction that appears on the film. She was petrified to the extent of not wanting to go anywhere without somebody - even tying string on her wrist and attaching it to her husband.

Tell me, would a person who just wanted to stage a hoax go to such an extent in front of their family? Then of course we have the incident where the wolf-like creature was trying to get into the house - we spoke to her son who is a complete skeptic and he confirmed this and he saw it too.

While we were at her home, her son was in the room the whole time of the interview, as was her daughters. The reasons for this is because Muslim women are not allowed to be in the presence of anyone unless accompanied by somebody they know.

So it wasn't just a case of 'kids go into the other room' - they were there for the entire interview.

The whole family also heard the banging on doors and growling both within and outside the house.

As regards to the footage. Lots of different people see different things. There have been quite a number who claim to actually see an alien behind the bed above her before she disappears. Personally, I cannot see it, but I get its all down to different peoples perspectives.

The reason why we call it an alien abduction tape is simply because Sonia had an abduction encounter that night and on viewing the tape saw that she disappeared fro her bed - coincidence or something else - those are the reasons why it has been called an alien abduction tape.

In regards to the Chupacabras - as I have already presented evidence personally investigated by myself - sometimes you cannot believe the 'official' story of events. If you haven't already, go and compare the bodies of the Chupa and the 'dog' in the lab. They don't even match - one even has grey and black stripes like a tabby cat.

Sometimes it just a case of rationally looking at something and then investigating it further when the official line doesn't add up.

I'm glad you mentioned Jaime Maussan because his name was mentioned when it was suggested other investigators get involved. I warned them off for the very same reasons that you described above. He is a sensationalist who would do nothing but harm.

In regards to the Jerusalem footage. I totally agree that 'some' of the footage is hoax. In fact I was a guest on BBC Radio WM a few weeks ago talking about that very subject, along with the recent MOD UFO files release.

You say that you made a similar hoax movie with a static background? To my knowledge only the one with the American tourists used a static background picture - which was obvious due to the pixels on the picture and also the static lights.

I am interested to know how exactly you conducted your simulation? How did you know the exact distance from the camera to the Dome to come to such a conclusion?

However, the other movies have much in common. Do you realise that the first movie that was released actually shows the cameraman who filmed the second movie? The guy who holds up the mobile phone is the one who filmed the second video.

Also the lights flicker in those videos and then we have to take into consideration that a weather webcam also captured a bright light above the Temple Mount at exactly the same time that those videos were filmed. ... lysis_news

Then we have investigators who have thoroughly investigated this and come to a different conclusion - actually calling MUFON out for missing information. MUFON actually starts their analysis by looking at the obviously faked 6th footage and hardly mention the first 2 videos released. ... munication

In regards to giving information about what is happening behind the scenes and other people involved - it would be very unprofessional of me to start mentioning the names of other people who have been brought in on this project and who were refused access.

All you need to know is that certain individuals were suggested to Sonia who got involved at a time when myself and Sonia were having problems communicating due to email problems. At the time Sonia thought that perhaps we were not interested because she had written emails that were unanswered.

Personally I would never have recommended the people who got involved in the meantime until our communications restarted. And it is those people who now want to run her story in magazines and who also interviewed her on camera who want to use that footage.

I have had no communication or involvement with these people whatsoever. But what I made clear to Sonia on our visit and interview was that she wouldn't be able to trust everybody within this field because some people are only in it for the money and to further their careers.

The events that unfolded over the following weeks exactly echoed the words that I had said to her and that is the reason why my website was given permission to run her story.
Last edited by Cosmicdave on Sun Apr 03, 2011 12:26 pm, edited 2 times in total.

Posts: 2518
Joined: Thu Oct 15, 2009 6:27 pm

PostSun Apr 03, 2011 12:23 pm » by Giusdude

maybe you should read the article again. mufon called it a fake. it's the "journalist" from the examiner (LOL) that said it's real.

now i know all i need to know about you guys and your "website".

you are as credible as billy meier.
as long as there's one idiot around wlling to believe bullshit, there will be a bullshitter

Posts: 67
Joined: Thu Mar 31, 2011 12:55 pm

PostSun Apr 03, 2011 12:32 pm » by Cosmicdave

giusdude wrote:maybe you should read the article again. mufon called it a fake. it's the "journalist" from the examiner (LOL) that said it's real.

now i know all i need to know about you guys and your "website".

you are as credible as billy meier.

That's what I am saying - read the Examiner review of the footage. It totally sinks MUFON's beliefs. And this is not the first time that I have read MUFON do all sorts of things to cover up evidence!

Posts: 2518
Joined: Thu Oct 15, 2009 6:27 pm

PostSun Apr 03, 2011 12:47 pm » by Giusdude

cosmicdave wrote:
giusdude wrote:maybe you should read the article again. mufon called it a fake. it's the "journalist" from the examiner (LOL) that said it's real.

now i know all i need to know about you guys and your "website".

you are as credible as billy meier.

That's what I am saying - read the Examiner review of the footage. It totally sinks MUFON's beliefs. And this is not the first time that I have read MUFON do all sorts of things to cover up evidence!

the only time i read the examiner (like in this case) is when i want to have a laugh. they are on the same level as news of the world, the sun, allnewsweb and so on.
and you are mentioning THEM as a source?
davey, it does you no good in the eyes of people with brains...
here, peruse this article (forget the website is posted on, look at the EVIDENCE, not at blah blah blah's..) and get back to me. ... -analysis/
if you are as smart as i think you are, after you STUDY this, you will see how wrong you were and that you were led on.
if, after looking at this, you still think this crap is real, then my friend we are done talking.
you can take the mule to the water, but you cannot make it drink....
as long as there's one idiot around wlling to believe bullshit, there will be a bullshitter

Posts: 2518
Joined: Thu Oct 15, 2009 6:27 pm

PostSun Apr 03, 2011 12:51 pm » by Giusdude

as long as there's one idiot around wlling to believe bullshit, there will be a bullshitter

Posts: 2518
Joined: Thu Oct 15, 2009 6:27 pm

PostSun Apr 03, 2011 12:55 pm » by Giusdude

as long as there's one idiot around wlling to believe bullshit, there will be a bullshitter

Posts: 2548
Joined: Mon May 10, 2010 3:02 pm

PostSun Apr 03, 2011 4:02 pm » by Punjedi


Thank you for your reply. Very concise and allowed me to make some very thorough evaluations of the entire story.

Here are the problems I see.

1. The youngest daughter could have easily been caught up in the "mystique of it all". After having helped run a DayCare for a number of years, you see how easy kids get caught up in the drama of their parents. I would watch kids roleplay the arguments and stresses of their parents and quite often, create whole, elaborate scenarios around those re-enactments.

My point in this matter, is that is complete here-say.

Much as is the story of the "wolf".

Banging noises, growling sounds inside and out.

This all sounds more like apparitions and ghosts then anything alien.

Poltergeist activity would actually explain these events a LOT more than "alien abduction"

Now, I understand that you had emails and backstory but that is called "forced inception"

She should have just said "watch the video, and contact me"

By giving you such a backstory with this, you already had the notion it was "alien" in nature.

I see absolutely nothing indicating alien involvement other than she vanishes.

You still have not addressed the fact that her vanish in and her vanish out, are both showing strange hesitations and motions.

Now, it sounds more and more like everyone involved truly believes the experience they had.

It also sounds like ,having endured our rather harsh ridicule, that it is standing (in my mind) to have more credibility.

The only thing I can add right now, until we get more info is.

Jerusalem. Let's put this crap to bed right now.

1. I am a semi-professional CGI compilation artists.

My passion is camera matching, cg-real life composition, and VFX editing.

This means I am specifically geared and trained to not only view an effect and figure out how it was done, but try and emulate it myself to see how things interact and work.

I figured out how most of the matrix was done, even before the end of the movie. I was actually pleasantly surprised to see their methods were slightly more archaic than what I had envisioned. In other words, when Neo is doing his first "hyper-speed" motion and you see the time-phasing effect, I figured they used a quick orbital or pan rig to throw a camera quickly around the subject, but I knew that it was a physical act and not a cg rigged model fake. Finding that they used an array of mounted cameras I thought, Ahhh. Little rough but works :)

Unlike the fight scene in the later movies where Neo is running around the faces of Mr. Smith clones while hanging onto a pole. That is almost entirely CG.

Now, when you take ANY of the Jerusalem videos into account and pull in the methods that I know, use, and am very aware of. You find that all those methods were applied.

1. The camera tracking for the first video (with cell phone shot guy in the scene) has very horrible and obvious parallax and tracking errors.

2. At the resolution filmed, you would not be able to see the raw cell-phone footage that clearly unless it was already being played back as a high-res movie on that cell-phone. Yes, this is a stretch because it assume that the footage is originally shot in low-res.

Realistically I think it could have been shot in HD and just reduced once the FX were added. What evidence do I have of this?

Things like, bloom, Bokeh, Motion blur, and artifacts due to motion and instability.

The fact that none of the light sources change, blur, or show any blooming while he is moving tells me his camera is probably locked on "infinite focus". This would keep it from auto-adjusting especially in a dark night scene where that could ruin the stock footage to be used for tracking.

Now, it is simply a matter of tracking the footage, putting into an editing software, most likely Adobe After effects as the lens flare and orb light effects are all built in.

I need to go for a moment so this is

(Part 1) To be continued.....
Nihil Sine Fide!

User avatar
Posts: 1383
Joined: Mon Jan 12, 2009 10:28 am

PostSun Apr 03, 2011 5:05 pm » by Yuya63

giusdude wrote:ok, i'm stepping down. i'm goin over the edge about something that has NO relevance in my life.
dave, littlegreys, sorry guys.
i stepped out of line.
what i think of you is of no consequence.
i hope to see some light shed on this subject asap.
thanks for sharing it here, i don't want to be responsible for DTV missing on your input.
you will not hear from me again,

So stfu asswipe. You slam someone for a legit post (whether real or not) And resort to name calling, then back down, then back to the names again. Which is it? Do you need meds? It's you that is making Dtv a less desirable place to come to. You wouldnt believe it if an alien slapped you in the face. I dont know what your agenda is, but its not helping anyone here.


  • Related topics
    Last post