It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


criss angel discussion...

page: 97
<< 94  95  96    98  99  100 >>

log in


posted on Jan, 25 2008 @ 08:54 AM

Originally posted by SilverSmith
reply to post by eyewitness86

Eyewitness, (funny you name is "eyewitness" and you argue for CA being able to levitate but have you ever been an "eyewitness"???)

OK, once again, for the third time now, I'm asking you is that video Iposted up edited or not?

If it is edited then why is it edited? Can you explain why the landings he performed are different?

Can you explain why the shadows are there in one shot but not in another, the person in one shot but absent from the next?

Again, please explain why we should not trust that video I posted?

Dear God, once again for those who will not read past posts, where this has been said many times:

Cameras take different shadow angles depending on location, obviously. A shot with the sun at your left yeilds different views and shadows than an angle facing away from the sun. Any time you move a camera ( and remember that differentr cameras are used as well) you get a differing angle of shadow.

Now, EDITING: I worked in TV many years ago, and editing is this : Editing is a method of taking many pieces of film and making a smooth, cohesive show out of them> it is done to make the most efficient use of TIME. Shows have to be timed to the SECOND, every one of them, and editing is the process used to make the show seamless and avoid abrupt stop,s starts and confusing lead ins to later shots.

EDITING IS NOT, NOT, NOT, alteration to deceive. There has NEVER EVER been ONE iota of proof that Criss or his team TRICK film to make things look like one event when actually there was another event.

Manipulation and trickery in film has NOTHING at all to do with editing, and everything to do with trickery and lies. Editing is OK. tricking film is not. PLEASE, just ONCE dear deniers, please present ONE scintilla of evidence that Criss uses faked and altered film to affect the reality of his events. How about ONE editor or witness to the film trrickery? NO? So ALL of his film tricksters are loyal, like all the paid witnesses, right? sure.

Hopw about ONE example of film that shows ( not editing ) but TRICKERY in it that changes the event from a fake to the appearance of real. Simply say9ing " this film is edited means nothing....ALL shows seen on TV are edited. Show some proof that the film was altered to reflect a scene that did not take place. You CANNOT because it has never happened in Criss career. If Criss is nothing but a film cheat, HOW does he get such loyalty from fans and such money and a Vegas show all his own?

What makes Criss the ONLY guy to lie and trick his way to fame and fortune in Vegas? If all it takes is a crane and some cameras and a few paid off witnesses ( loyal forever tho!) then why don't we, or you, go make a few fake videos and take some of Criss fan base away, as well as some big bucks? Don't you think that there are others that would LOVE to make money and have fame? Then why don't THEY simply lie and chaet a little and get paid for it?

Because they are too lazy? too honest? c'mon now, deniers, this is stupid..human nature does not allow for you to imagine that Vegas is made up of saints willing to let Criss make all the dough and get all the glory just so they will not be accused of making' altered ' videos? Does that make any sense? No way, Jose.

If you are so deprived of evidence that you are reduced to examining pictures shadows to prove your point, you are in a pathetic position. Talk about grasping at straws!! My God people..if the most substantial piece of proof you have is a ' maybe the shadow is wrong ' then you have lost already. That should be the LAST bit you pull out of your hat, and it is the first!! Talk about nerve.

Once again: There is NO proof that Criss uses tricks to make people think that he is levitating . There is no proof that Criss uses props in the high levitations. The reply that no one else would take advantage of this easy money making scheme for some reason is stupid. If there is a way to make a dollar, there are many out there willing to try it and see. But obviously no one is going to be able to make any videos of similar events as Criss', NOT because they are too lazy and uninterested, but because they CANNOT DUPLICATE THE EFFECTS SEEN, even if they DID use props.

There is a crook out there for every victim, and to say that Criss and Criss alone is able to lie and cheat his way to fame and fortune is sa desperate and silly charge. Why have no other competitors claimed that the videos are tricked? That would hurt him and help them, right? Or are all competitoirs friends and pals now? You guys will believe ANYTHING but the truth.

So, what are you going to believe, your lying eyes or the people who claim that there arte props there we just cannot see? If you have the excuse of ' faked film ' for the videos, WHAT EXCUSE do you have for his LIVE events? Does he hypnotize the audiences into thinking they are seeing something other than what is taking place? How does Criss do live shows if he is a fake and a cheat? You guys are scraping the bottom of the barnacle on the hull of the deepest sunken ship under the sea.

To accuse Criss of being a cheat, a liar, a fraud...all because you cannot see any props, have no witnesses of any props and have no reason to believe there are any props ( other than your very limited parameters of belief ). Would you accuse anyone else of such awful crimes as deceit for money ( fraud ) and lying, based ONLY on SUPPOSITION and NOT hard evidence? Would YOU like being called a liar and cheat by people who had to imagine that you had done wrong, and who had NO hard evidence of any wrongdoing?

Grossly unfair to Criss, intellectually bankrupt and silly as well; you deniers are living up to your creed as usual: Embrace ignorance, ignore all facts and defy all logic. I prefer the normal attributes of fair play, evidence before accusation and no presupposed ideas at the outset. You guys have a lot of nerve, but no proof. Now Criss is a criminal, according to you, a fraud taking money under flase pretenses. If you really feel that way, why not advise the Nevavda Attorney Generals office( or the FBI ) that Criss is making altered videos in Nevada and selling them across state lines, using fraud to make people think he is actually levitating?

I mean, if you REALLY think that he is altering video and selling it under false pretenses, go after him. EXPOSE him if you can!! Since those closest to him have never done so, and all those witnesses have never done so, and all the ' film editors ' have never done so..maybe they are all just too loyal, huh? So YOU should be the one to expose his lies and deceits, right? Why not? Too lazy? or maybe just the fact that you have no PROOF of any of that and it is all CONJECTURE!!

posted on Jan, 25 2008 @ 12:29 PM
Here's something else to ponder upon..... CA has shown how he performs his "street" levitations. It's a very clever trick and I believe David Blaine does his the same way also but as we can see it's a trick, an illusion, as explained by CA himself.

So are we to then believe, according to Eyewitness, that CA uses an illusionary trick to levitate a few inches off the ground but can float between two buildings without any assistance? If he can tap into some spiritual realm for his "high" levitations then why can't he also do that for his street type levitations?

Or did CA come out with a fake "How I do levitation" video to throw everyone off his trail?

posted on Jan, 25 2008 @ 12:41 PM
That's a bunch of crap eyewitness.

You mean to tell me that there are not TWO different landings in that film?

You just put up a big reply to me, which I thank you for, BUT AT LEAST deal with the questions I posted. You filled that space with the same fluff.

You did nothing to explain away the bright sun in one shot and overcast with no shadows in the next....except tell me that different angles create different looks. You've got to be kidding and you're now reaching way out in left field.

There is no way that there is bright sun in one shot and overcast skies and no shadows in another view of the same shot at the same time. It's either sunny with shadows or overcast and no shadows especially if the shot is of the same event at the same time. Different camera angles will only give you a different view of the same event.

You also can't explain why a man is seen looking up at Criss with a trailer in the background then in another clip that man is gone but the trailer is there and in both shots Criss is floating across the SAME LOCATION.

It's an edited tape. I don't care if you want to re-classify it as "trickery" or what ever it's an edited piece of film which is so obvious one's mental state would have to come into question to claim it's not.

posted on Jan, 25 2008 @ 02:23 PM
you people do realize that when you see him in the "streets" of LAS VEGAS he works for a CASINO

i have seen an episode of his show where he pushes over some palm tree, forget the fact it didn't look anything like the 50 other identical trees planted around him at the time(i assume part of a landscaping job, how the 1 tree found it's way in there who knows) it's planted on casino land, they have the money to pull off any tricks they want to

especially when it's for a TV show that makes their star entertainer more famous brining them more asses for their seats meaning more cash for them

did they just leave celine dion to sing outside with a few fold up chairs when they gave her a job in vegas? hell no, why would they treat this guy any different than her

she is 1 of many singers in the world, criss angel is one of like 3 maybe? for what he does they'd treat him very well knowing they can't really replace him

posted on Jan, 25 2008 @ 06:54 PM
reply to post by eyewitness86


I will try once more to lead a normal conversation with you.
I will forget all the insults and other things you did and try to start over again.

Would you perhaps mind answering a question?

If i had proof, that Criss modified the video (removing something with the help of a computer) of sawing himself in half and edited out the part where he was hiding in the table, requiring paid actors as witnesses, prooving he lied about that, would it matter or not?

A simple yes or no will do.

And please try to be civil in your response this time.
There is no need to resort to insults. If you are completelly sure of your position, there is no reason to be afraid of discussing it, right?


posted on Jan, 25 2008 @ 07:11 PM

Originally posted by SilverSmith
OK, not sure if this has been posted up so I apologize if this is a double post.

This guy took a lot of time and effort in putting this together and I was pretty impressed by it.

Now lets see if I can get the linky to work.

Awesome work...and criss is busted!

posted on Jan, 26 2008 @ 03:58 AM
New Interview with Criss - Chicago Tribune, don't have source link yet, sorry about that. But I will find it.

Here is your "proof" of Criss Angel admitting his use of props!

Vegas is definitely home. "I moved everything in my life -- my business, my personal stuff -- to Las Vegas. I have a huge 7,500-square-foot warehouse that's right off the Strip in a secret location, which houses all my props and illusions. I also have a workshop in there."

EW, can you comprise a list of CA's "feats" that you believe are NOT illusions? It seems your list of what he achieves via TK or channeling is quite large.

So far you've said these are NOT illusions; Walk on water, walk thru glass (and at one point you believed the rollercoaster thru him was), hand thru glass, hand thru his chest, all high levitations (but never low ones), the Luxor Float, building to building float, Coin trick, String thru eye, mind reading, fork bending, pain tolerance, super human strength and alot more! You believe so many that I wonder which ones you label 'illusions'?

[edit on 26-1-2008 by violet]

posted on Jan, 26 2008 @ 01:46 PM

Originally posted by eyewitness86

Manipulation and trickery in film has NOTHING at all to do with editing, and everything to do with trickery and lies. Editing is OK. tricking film is not. PLEASE, just ONCE dear deniers, please present ONE scintilla of evidence that Criss uses faked and altered film to affect the reality of his events. How about ONE editor or witness to the film trrickery? NO? So ALL of his film tricksters are loyal, like all the paid witnesses, right? sure.

I showed you the "car chicken" video, where they splice together two shots to give the impression of CA getting hit by the car and smashed through the wall and still you are in denial about CA using trickery in his film. You have avoided that film multiple times, why the selective memory?

[edit on 26-1-2008 by pavil]

posted on Jan, 26 2008 @ 04:22 PM
Me thinks Eyewitness is avoiding this whole thread now

posted on Jan, 26 2008 @ 05:27 PM
reply to post by deezee

Here is your ANSWER: NO. I do not care one iota about any other stunt, trick, illusion, stage magic, or whatever. ALl I am talking about for the sake of simplicity and staying on a defined subject is HIGH levitations as performed at the Luxor and golf course and the Atrium of the Luxor as well. I also believe that the levitation I posted a video of a page or so agi where he lifts off literally from the hands of the onlookers is legit as welll.

BUT, I stick to the HIGH levitations because it is a specific event and I am making a specific point: There is NO proof whatsoever that Criss used props in the Luxor and golf course events..there are many others as well but again for the sake of simplicity we will concentrate on that. You are confusing two different events: A stunt where Cris does normal stage and set up illusionist stuff, AND then there is the totaly diffenent category o" f Body / Mind / Spirit demonstration " which is what Criss calls is. he does not call it an illusion.

But no matter what anyone says, the fact is the after looking for props, examining the area and physical layout, after examining various videos, after calling the Engineering chief at the Luxor and talking to him, after all that and more, I came to the conclusion that there is one very good reason that we cannot see any props in the brightest light on earth: There are none. That of course leads one to the obvious conclusion that Criss can levitate for brief periods and at some heights.

I was not looking for this: I am a skeptic by nature BUt I have experienced so many weird things in my life that I am open to all possibilities and I do NOT start and examination with any predetrmined conclusions. I do NOT assume that man canot levitate: There is enough anecdotal evidence throughout history to valiodate the event, even though it is not a common occurrence in any society. I started with an open mind.

Then, after considering the evidence, not the suppositions, not the maybe'snot the perhaps..but the hard and cold evidence, it turns out that there is absolutely NO concrete evidence that supports ANY of the deniers main conclusions. They are ALL suppositions. They imagine that they are logical suppositions, but still with nothing tangible, nothing of substance, nothing that could be called definite, a denier has to admit that all they really have is the assumptions that they bring to the debate and nothing else.

For example, lets be fair: we all know that to believe that Criss is able to make money and fame by faking his videos is nonsense. To believe that he is the only one doing it because no one else is low class enough is ludicrous. to believe that all his competition holds him in contempt for his fake videos but never mention it to any trade papers or the press is silly. To believe that Criss can pay off legions of ' witnesses ' over the years to remain silen forever, and they do so: That is insane.

To imagine that Criss has no equal on earth as far as being a trickster is fine with you; but you will not believe that he simply has no equal as far as levitation goes, even though all the evidence points to that as the truth. To accept the premise that Criss uses props that cannot be seen and that no one else uses for their benefit is beyond belief. There are SO MANY odds defying factors that deniers must accept in order to avoid the plain truth.

You have to stretch the bounds of reason over and over and insult the odds over and over agaion to stay with the program that see what is not there. I am READY to be convinced that Criss used props in the Luxor levitation: prove it. Find ONE witness that observed the prop set up. Show ONE photo that shows wires ands what they hang from, show ONE witness paid off to lie for Criss, find ONE video editor that tricked film for Criss to deceive people.

Find SOME damned thing, but just please make sure that it has SUBSTANCE and is NOT mere conjecture again. If it contains the words: Maybe, perhaps, allegedly, probably, likley, chances are....then please stop. If there is no evidence more sound than a mere wisp of a 'possibility then save it please. I have heard them all. I want to see something that says : OK, Here is proof of a prop!! And is. I will wait.

posted on Jan, 26 2008 @ 06:34 PM
link have yet to answer one question as to WHY the video I posted has such contradictory shots within one video? Do you really think calling anyone at the Luxor would get you, "Yeah, Criss Angel used a lot of props to do that float" ???

The reason you have avoided it and just posted "blah, blah, blah" is because you have no answer to it. You THINK you have answered and thus put the topic to rest but that's only in your mind.

So once again, why is there differences in shadows from one shot to the next of the same event at the same time??

In one shot we have a guy looking up at CA and then from another angle we have no guy yet it's supposed to be of one continuous event, correct? So where did the guy go? Did CA make him disappear as he was floating over him??

The most glaring contradiction is of the landing. It's supposed to be one seamless capture of CA doing a high levitation, correct? So we have one shot from the ground up and another shot from level ground where CA makes touch-down yet can you PLEASE explain why we have two different landings from CA?

Again it's supposed to be one continuous event and if that's the case then we should see the same thing from both angles.

You won't respond to me because you can't. You can only throw out insults and that great word "deniers!"

If this topic went before judge and jury you would lose as your only evidence is:

"I am a skeptic by nature but because I can't find any props or witnesses that say CA is just an illusionist I believe he must then be able to levitate. Oh yea, he also calls it a "mind/body/spirit" thing so that must be what it is. These deniers claim he is just a normal guy who does illusions but again I have seen no evidence in his TV show or videos of any props so it must be real!"

The jury would view the video I posted and conclude:

"We the jury find CA to be just an illusionist as Mr. Eyewitness failed to provide us evidence beyond reasonable doubt that CA is anything but an illusionist. Of course we would not find any evidence of any props for his levitations in his TV show or videos as this would be counter productive to him being seen as a 'Mind Freak' "

Why on earth would CA and his team put out a video where they knew props and such were visible? It would be stupid. Now stuff may get released that they miss, such as the videos myself and others have posted.

Ball is in your court. Please don't reply with your typical, "You're all deniers, and since you have no evidence then CA must be real, yadda, yadda, yadda"

posted on Jan, 26 2008 @ 07:25 PM

Originally posted by eyewitness86
Here is your ANSWER: NO. I do not care one iota about any other stunt, trick, illusion, stage magic, or whatever.


if i (or someone else) can proove that one of CA videos is faked,
a part of the action necessary to preform it removed from the video,
covered up as a switch of a camera,
and an object necessary to preform the trick removed from the video with the use of computers,
requireing a paid "audience" to pretend not to notice these things,

this wouldn't mean anything to you?

Well then, what was your "evidence" of CA's levitation again?!?

Wasn't it, that he doesn't use props?
And that he doesn't use video trickery?
Wasn't it, that the "witnesses" never came out and told about these props and trickery?
Wasn't it, that it is impossible to pay witnesses, not to tell about all this?

Question 1:
Well, if it is impossible, then how come these witnesses didn't come out and tell how this particular trick (sawing in half) was done, since we know for a fact that it would be impossible for them not to notice what was later removed from the video?

Because they didn't... So it obviously IS possible to pay them not to tell. At least not to the press.

Question 2:
Besides, there is another side to this part of your "evidence"...

You keep saying it is impossible for witnesses not to come out and tell how it was done.
This would mean, that they must have come out and told how it was done, right?

I mean, no matter if it was props or real levitation, by your logic, they would, or already did, come out and tell what it was.
Can you show me where they told this?

Question 3:
And another thing.. What do you think would be harder to keep quiet about:
- Wires?
- Or real human levitation?

Which one of these two things would be harder to pay people to stay quiet about?

I mean, wires are boring..
But real human levitation, and all the implications of it!?!

Could YOU keep quiet about that? I know i couldn't..

So did anyone of the "witnesses" in that levitation video come out and say "It was real levitation! Humans can levitate!"?

Did they?

If CA can levitate and if it is impossible to pay people to stay quiet, then why didn't anyone come out and say this?

And i'm talking about people who saw him up close during this..

See, this is the problem with your logic.. It debunks itself. And your reply is, that you don't care + a barrage of insults.

In fact, i know you won't reply to these questions. I marked them, so you could reply to them one by one, but i know you won't.
You'll just start anoter rambling session, calling me and others "deniers", and spewing insults left and right.

And then you say you came to your conclusion using logic?
You know, when someone is using logic, he can discuss it, explain it, and make others understand this logic.

You also said, you elliminated all the other possibilities, but at the same time you don't want to answer questions. How can you claim you eliminated all the other possibilities, if you don't even want to listen to them, never mind answering?

[edit on 26/1/08 by deezee]

posted on Jan, 26 2008 @ 10:13 PM
Spam Removed.

[edit on 1/26/2008 by Djarums]

posted on Jan, 27 2008 @ 12:58 AM
ok , EW86 wishes to ONLY focus on the claimed " hi levitations " fine - thats his perogative

luxor stunt

the luxor is CAs business partner , if you indeed spoke to them - they are his natural accomplices

you claim that ` only CA was up on the rooof - that is demostrably false - there is a minimum of one camera man up there too - it is evident from the video intro

PS - having filmed the ` excitement ` of CA climing a ladder - why no other footatge from inside / under the dome ? all the footage of the ` levitation ` is taken from considerable distance

why no close up work ?? unless there was apparatus they did not want to reveal ?

golf course stunt

what exactly is the object that tracks across the screen above CAs head ?

PS - it is very distracting - so why was it not edited out - like the " distraction " of a man walking across a car park in the roof 2 roof stunt ?

please be consistant

PS - have you tracked down any one who even remembers this event occurring ?? or has every single club member and staff member vanished - thats magic

roof 2 roof stunt

the 2 take offs , 2 landings and multiple takes have been shown to you - and you have retreated into denial - claiming ` aestetic editing `

posted on Jan, 27 2008 @ 01:37 AM

Originally posted by eyewitness86
I was not looking for this: I am a skeptic by nature BUt I have experienced so many weird things in my life that I am open to all possibilities and I do NOT start and examination with any predetrmined conclusions. I do NOT assume that man canot levitate: There is enough anecdotal evidence throughout history to valiodate the event, even though it is not a common occurrence in any society. I started with an open mind.

I think you are contradicting yourself here. You DO have pre-conceived ideas - that levitation is possible. You don't ever question if it's POSSIBLE you may be wrong.

I don't understamnd how you can't grasp an illusionist peforms illusions!

He shows you how he does the low ones using props, but won't reveal the high ones. That to you means he can do any height (up to 500 ft so far), but fears his powers will be discovered, so he fakes some low ones to mis-direct. Ridiculous.

posted on Jan, 28 2008 @ 07:25 AM
Well ive been away for a week in Cuba (lots of jellyfish but still fun) and I can see we havent really progressed too much in this argument.

Originally posted by eyewitness86
But no matter what anyone says, the fact is the after looking for props, 1 examining the area and physical layout,2
after examining various videos,3 after calling the Engineering chief at the Luxor and talking to him, after all that and more, I came to the conclusion that there is one very good reason that we cannot see any props in the brightest light on earth: There are none. That of course leads one to the obvious conclusion that Criss can levitate for brief periods and at some heights.

To the bolded:
1) When have you looked for props? You've been a proponenrnt for legitimate levitation from the get-go.

2) When have you examined the area and physical layout? What degree's or experiance do you have in reading blueprints, structural engineering diagrams, and periphrial addon diagrams? How did you get ahold of such things without going to a hall of records? If you do have such things, please, do share with us. Otherwise, your examination is amatuer at best and completely useless.

3) What video's have you examined? You have only posted MindFreak Productions, do you mean to tell me you went frame by frame and looked for errors or discrepencies? If so, when have you done this? Certainly not in this thread.

4) Where is this list you prmissed to produce for us detailing all the facts (read: Evidence spoonfed to you from MindFreak Productions) about a week ago? I was really looking forward to seeing your compiled list when I got back, but yet again you have produced nothing but tirade after tirade, barking about odds against our side while producing none of the statistical data necessary to calculate either side. (if your so sure about the odds, just frickin prove it!)

You answer none of the tough questions you claim to, you just brush them off calling them "non-issues" and launch into another unproven tirade about how logical you are.

All you've got is empty hopes in one hand and excriment in the other.

posted on Jan, 29 2008 @ 08:12 AM
reply to post by InSpiteOf

You misspelled ' excrement ' which somehow does not supride me in the least. Accsuing me of having a portion of it in my hand adds WHAT to the discussion? I am tired of casting pearls before intellectual swine. I write dozens of questions that go unanswered that actually have some meaning, and all you can do is insult and argue with nothing to back you up.

I will work on a suitable reply soon.

posted on Jan, 29 2008 @ 08:36 AM
Ok folks, enough with the subtle insults

Let's get back on topic:

criss angel discussion...

And please remember to be civil

Courtesy Is Mandatory

Thank you

[edit on 1/29/2008 by JacKatMtn]

posted on Jan, 29 2008 @ 09:45 AM
reply to post by eyewitness86

Uh huh, and you mispelled "suprised", what exactly is your point? We all make spelling mistakes, expecially when you type fast.

I hope your reply actually addresses the points Ive raised. I await the copies of the structural drawings you've examined. Please include your calculations on how its impossible to add supports, cranes, and other props.

[edit on 29-1-2008 by InSpiteOf]

posted on Jan, 29 2008 @ 10:14 AM
I can't read Eyewitness' responses but it seems from other peoples replies that Eyewitness is up to his old deceiving tricks again. Believing he has the answers, but never showing any full analysis.


Not one piece of evidence anaylsed and brought forward! The people who are 'against' Criss Angel supply analysis daily! Yet Eyewitness just barks on about his beliefs and theories...all the time like a broken record. You'd think even he would be sick of typing rubbish by now!?

Where's these pieces of data you constantly yap on about? Where's the analytical data that you seem to 'always have handy' yet never show? Where's the data that proves and backs up your beliefs? When will Eyewitness learn that he's looking very, very silly believing something without backing up his claims?!

The 'naysayers' supply video footage analysed and broken down, with stills and screen shots on a weekly basis...only to be thrown out of the window by Eyewitness because he believes he's correct. IT'S ALL BELIEF AND A HEAD FULL OF HOT AIR! Well, Eyewitness, believe all you're the only one believing without concrete proof! If you could actually prove you're theories, then maybe you'd have more followers. At the moment you're daft and we enjoy the laughs. We need laughter in life, as it causes you to use less facial muscles compared to frowning. Thanks, you make us smile at the ludicrous claims!

1-0 to the disbelievers!

top topics

<< 94  95  96    98  99  100 >>

log in