Film of abduction taking place?

Post a reply

:
In an effort to prevent automatic submissions, we require that you enter both of the words displayed into the text field underneath.
Smilies
:pray: :sleep: :D :alien51: :) :mrgreen: :wink: :love: :obsessed: :| :( :twisted: :evil: :scary: :o :dunno: :? 8-) :hmmm: :shock: :flop: :top: :x :P :oops: :cry: :?: :idea: :arrow: :!: :nails: :look: :rtft: :roll: :ohno: :hell: :vomit: :lol: :think: :headscratch: :clapper: :bang; :censored: :badair: :help: :owned: :nope: :nwo: :geek: :ugeek: :robot: :alien: :mrcool: :ghost: :sunny: :peep: :yell: :banana: :dancing: :hugging: :bullshit: :cheers: :shooting: :hiho:
View more smilies
BBCode is ON
[img] is OFF
[flash] is OFF
[url] is ON
Smilies are ON
Topic review
   

Expand view Topic review: Film of abduction taking place?

Re: Film of abduction taking place?

Post by Littlegreys » Mon Apr 04, 2011 9:49 am

The major trouble is once the idiots start releasing fake video of actual events its muddies the water for further investigation

Re: Film of abduction taking place?

Post by Ftt0024 » Sun Apr 03, 2011 11:48 pm

giusdude wrote:not sure. It could be thunder.
On then other hand, do you see now that the fitst video is a fake? And once the first one is debunked, the others count for nothing.
Unless, of course, a real ufo appeared in exactly the same spot where someone had just faked one. Talk about one in a billion, right?


I knew you couldn't keep quiet about this.

We have all seen those debunker videos. For me, they do not add up and they don't conclusively show they were a hoax. Things are moving in the shot because he can't keep the camera straight. Anybody could take those videos, re-edit them and put in some moving red lines to make it seem fake. I'm not buying it.

There is not enough evidence to say it was 100 percent real or faked. We all have our opinions. We should all just move on from this. Everyone has stated, and re-stated where they stand on this. Nobody is going to change anyones minds at this point.

Re: Film of abduction taking place?

Post by Giusdude » Sun Apr 03, 2011 10:11 pm

not sure. It could be thunder.
On then other hand, do you see now that the fitst video is a fake? And once the first one is debunked, the others count for nothing.
Unless, of course, a real ufo appeared in exactly the same spot where someone had just faked one. Talk about one in a billion, right?

Re: Film of abduction taking place?

Post by Littlegreys » Sun Apr 03, 2011 9:35 pm

so how do you explain the flash on the weather satalite that cant be hoaxed

Re: Film of abduction taking place?

Post by Giusdude » Sun Apr 03, 2011 7:55 pm

dave, the wall is real. the guys are standing right next to it, filming it. it is the footage of the background, with the "orb" descending that has been added afterwards.
re-watch the video to see what i mean. they took a shot of the foreground. Then, they edited a video of the dome adding the light descending to it.
then they superimposed the first shot (the foreground) to the edited footage.
again, look at the video, you can clearly see it's a footage on top of another.
don't know if i'm making any sense here...
i

Re: Film of abduction taking place?

Post by Cosmicdave » Sun Apr 03, 2011 7:41 pm

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?

Re: Film of abduction taking place?

Post by Giusdude » Sun Apr 03, 2011 6:58 pm

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.

Re: Film of abduction taking place?

Post by Yuya63 » Sun Apr 03, 2011 6:54 pm

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.

Re: Film of abduction taking place?

Post by Giusdude » Sun Apr 03, 2011 6:47 pm

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.

Re: Film of abduction taking place?

Post by Cosmicdave » Sun Apr 03, 2011 6:40 pm

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?

Top

Visit Disclose.tv on Facebook