Film of abduction taking place?

Conspirator
User avatar
Posts: 2519
Joined: Thu Oct 15, 2009 7:27 pm

PostSun Apr 03, 2011 6:27 pm » by Giusdude


yuya63 wrote:
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,
Giuseppe.

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.


lol....
what "name calling" did i do?
i called this thing a scam, i believe it is my right to do so if that's what i think....
my agenda is not to believe hoaxes.
unlike you, i use logic and i am not guillable.
research is the key, my friend.
did dave (or hbreed) hire you to defending him? :D
or you just offer your services for free evrytime someone get questioned? :D
the very nature of this site invites controversy and arguments, if you do not like it you know what to do....
ciao!
as long as there's one idiot around wlling to believe bullshit, there will be a bullshitter

Conspirator
Posts: 2514
Joined: Mon May 10, 2010 4:02 pm

PostSun Apr 03, 2011 6:32 pm » by Punjedi


yuya63 wrote:
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,
Giuseppe.

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.



Pot meet Kettle.

Now you two have been properly introduced.
Image
Nihil Sine Fide!

Writer
User avatar
Posts: 67
Joined: Thu Mar 31, 2011 1:55 pm

PostSun Apr 03, 2011 6:52 pm » by Cosmicdave


giusdude wrote:
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.
http://www.ufosonearth.com/site/fourth- ... -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....


Before jumping into the fire you really need to carefully read what I write. I AGREE that SOME of the Jerusalem footage is a HOAX. As I said in my earlier post, the 4th video with the American tourists is obviously faked - it doesn't feature the flash of light as the object ascends for a start.

The link that you posted only strengthens the argument that I posted - the first two videos are identical - your source also confirms this. In fact, if you read that article, he really doesn't say anything about the first 2 videos released, other than they seem to match each other.

And as I pointed out earlier - the guy we see in the first video is the guy who shot the second video, so that strengthens the argument even more.

What I find interesting is that you accused me earlier of not being able to do proper research on the Chupa case because I didn't visit Nicaragua - and yet just a couple of posts later you are claiming that you have analysed this video from footage that is heavily processed due to appearing on ~You Tube and also which is probably several generations away from the original footage. Also you claim that you have calculated distances etc? How exactly could you do this if you have never visited the area?

And that is my argument - 4 videos were released afterwards which are totally different to first 2. Just because some of them are bogus does not mean that they all are.

Conspirator
Posts: 2514
Joined: Mon May 10, 2010 4:02 pm

PostSun Apr 03, 2011 6:56 pm » by Punjedi


@Gius, please stop. You are not helping matters at this point and now Dave is getting sidetracked trying to answer to your half-thought responses.

I am not truly knocking you, but it is a time to use tact and fact.

Now it seems they are wrapped up defending your "info" and the question I put forward are being ignored.

Thanks, I don't have the energy for this thread anymore.

Dave, Jerusalem is fake. Read back through even just a few of the points
and I AM talking about the original 2.

I didn't even get started but I am being de-railed by angst.

*done*
Image
Nihil Sine Fide!

Conspirator
User avatar
Posts: 2519
Joined: Thu Oct 15, 2009 7:27 pm

PostSun Apr 03, 2011 7:01 pm » by Giusdude


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![/quote]

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.
http://www.ufosonearth.com/site/fourth- ... -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....[/quote]

Before jumping into the fire you really need to carefully read what I write. I AGREE that SOME of the Jerusalem footage is a HOAX. As I said in my earlier post, the 4th video with the American tourists is obviously faked - it doesn't feature the flash of light as the object ascends for a start.

The link that you posted only strengthens the argument that I posted - the first two videos are identical - your source also confirms this. In fact, if you read that article, he really doesn't say anything about the first 2 videos released, other than they seem to match each other.

And as I pointed out earlier - the guy we see in the first video is the guy who shot the second video, so that strengthens the argument even more.

What I find interesting is that you accused me earlier of not being able to do proper research on the Chupa case because I didn't visit Nicaragua - and yet just a couple of posts later you are claiming that you have analysed this video from footage that is heavily processed due to appearing on ~You Tube and also which is probably several generations away from the original footage. Also you claim that you have calculated distances etc? How exactly could you do this if you have never visited the area?

And that is my argument - 4 videos were released afterwards which are totally different to first 2. Just because some of them are bogus does not mean that they all are.[/quote]


sorry dave, i did not explain myself properly.
the links iposted where from a very quick search on google.
as far as the first 2 videos are concerned, our resident tech, Punjedi, analized them and showed how the kid (eligael or whatever) shot the wall in the foreground, than overlaid it on the panoramic vista, then added the special effect. when you see the 2 vids side by side, the "orb" movement AND the "flashes" DO NOT match. case closed. i will post you that link, so you can verify the info yourself. (and i never spoke of distances?)

as far as the other poster's accusation of my "calling names", i re read the whole thread.
well, i had a few exchanges with oxygen, true. i am not proud of that.
but, and dave can attest to this himself, i NEVER called HIM names
i accused him of being a scammer, yes. i do not deny it.
but on second tought, i do not believe he is. i think his heart is in the right place, but he's giving a lot of credit to the wrong people. i have the right to think so.
i hope this footage will be analized soon, as to have a final word about it.
i'm out.
as long as there's one idiot around wlling to believe bullshit, there will be a bullshitter

Writer
User avatar
Posts: 67
Joined: Thu Mar 31, 2011 1:55 pm

PostSun Apr 03, 2011 7:40 pm » by Cosmicdave


This is my response to PunJedi - my answers are in blue.

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.

The only here-say is that you are making assumptions without even speaking to the witnesses. There are also times when young children will say the most embarrassing things at the most critical moment too.

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"

There are several well documented occasions where paranormal activity and aliens/UFOs appear in the same area. Have you ever heard of James Gillilands ranch or Skinwalker Ranch? - http://www.skinwalkerranch.org

As I said in my article, it wouldn't surprise me if a portal may have opened up in the area.


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.

I really don't know why you are coming up with so many assumptions regarding the turn of events? We first received a distressed phone call from her and at that time she mentioned the footage and said that she would see if her husband could convert the video so that they could send it to us either over the internet or by mail.

We kept a totally open mind on the matter - that is what a good investigator does - not make up his mind before even interviewing the witness.


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

I don't agree. She instantly appears back in the bed. And when she goes it appears to me that she goes into a fetal position.

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.

Good. As regards to your interest in CGI - I have a friend on FB who also likes to comment on fake footage as he is an expert on using CGI too. From all the footage that has ever been posted on FB and which we both commented on - we have always agreed in every example about certain hoaxed videos. And he is coming into the argument from the same perspective as yourself.

However, regarding the Jerusalem footage, he said that he believed it was real - I remember him saying that it would take ages to render such a scene for starters.


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.

And this couldn't be attributed to the process that it takes to upload to You Tube or in fact that it might have been filmed on a cheap camera?

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.

How do you know what the resolution of the camera was if it hasn't been revealed? I dont see the footage playing on the cellphone clearly at all - all I see is a brightly lit up screen as he holds the camera above his head.

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

All of the artefacts you would also get if filming on a cheap camera phone you mean?

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.

And what is wrong with that? On the 2nd footage you can see the camera taken by the phone is glary and has blur because it is a cheap camera - you can also hear the exact same things said on video 1 and 2 because the cameramen are talking to each other as they take the footage.

If anyone wanted to film a hoax, why would they do it twice from the same angle with both cameramen talking to each other?

Conspirator
User avatar
Posts: 2519
Joined: Thu Oct 15, 2009 7:27 pm

PostSun Apr 03, 2011 7:47 pm » by Giusdude


very first video in this page:
ufo-visits-dome-of-the-rock-temple-mount-jerusalem-28-01-t42287-30.html
please have a look and share your toughts.
as long as there's one idiot around wlling to believe bullshit, there will be a bullshitter

Conspirator
User avatar
Posts: 1359
Joined: Mon Jan 12, 2009 11:28 am

PostSun Apr 03, 2011 7:54 pm » by Yuya63


I am not defending anyone, nor did i say i believed any of it. Im just tired of seeing you accusing people of being spammers when the only thing they did was post something of interest. Dave, imo, seems to have answered all, or most, of your questions in a nice and respectful manner. Yet, you continue to bash him. I do understand your doubts, but your rude. And i dont think he deserves that, just because you were "burned" before.

Conspirator
User avatar
Posts: 2519
Joined: Thu Oct 15, 2009 7:27 pm

PostSun Apr 03, 2011 7:58 pm » by Giusdude


yuya63 wrote:I am not defending anyone, nor did i say i believed any of it. Im just tired of seeing you accusing people of being spammers when the only thing they did was post something of interest. Dave, imo, seems to have answered all, or most, of your questions in a nice and respectful manner. Yet, you continue to bash him. I do understand your doubts, but your rude. And i dont think he deserves that, just because you were "burned" before.


duly noted.
and i have already offered my apologies.
now back to the subject at hand.
as long as there's one idiot around wlling to believe bullshit, there will be a bullshitter

Writer
User avatar
Posts: 67
Joined: Thu Mar 31, 2011 1:55 pm

PostSun Apr 03, 2011 8:41 pm » by Cosmicdave


The debate regarding the Jerusalem footage is one that has caused a lot of controversy. And I would say that the verdict on its validity would be 50/50.

However, there are a few things with the footage you linked to that I want to point out. PunJedi remarks about parallax and also the speeds of light sources moving are dependent on where they are placed away from the camera.

My question would be 'Considering that you do not accurately know the speed which the object was moving, your assumption is based on guess work.'

Also your theory about that being a fake wall seems odd? What would be the purpose of putting such an object into the footage?


PreviousNext

  • Related topics
    Replies
    Views
    Last post
Visit Disclose.tv on Facebook