It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

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

Thank you.

 

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

 

Finally saw my first ufo / alien

page: 18
12
<< 15  16  17    19  20  21 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 20 2007 @ 05:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by mattsev15
Audio from ASF-0030
that is the audio file im talking about.listen to the first 6 seconds of it very carefully.
i dont see how hearing voices of indians has anything to do with UFO's

Post the link to the video. I wanna check something...




posted on Feb, 20 2007 @ 05:35 PM
link   
media.putfile.com...
its this one listen very carefully. if this is a hoax than i will be very dissapointed,and plus if they heard the voices of indians i dont think you would hear it that clearly because first of all in the video you can tell that they are driving....and plus even if they could hear the voices while they were driving than why didnt they say something or act afraid???

[edit on 20-2-2007 by mattsev15]

[edit on 20-2-2007 by mattsev15]



posted on Feb, 20 2007 @ 05:37 PM
link   
Ah, so i found the complete list of _all_ videos and pictures taken. And from what i can see it's not hoaxed.

There's a lot more to see than just that pure audio video. I knew i've managed ,some time before i registered, to see all videos and images before. That's why i do not agree that this is hoaxed.

edit: until hiii does not agree that i post the link to the complete list of videos and images, i will not do so. what i will do is to give you some stills from the videos if you like. ... oh wait another member already did that...

[edit on 20-2-2007 by KillTheShill]



posted on Feb, 20 2007 @ 05:38 PM
link   
but what is your opinion on that audio file? doesnt it seem like it was the GF saying that because whoever said it had an accent



posted on Feb, 20 2007 @ 05:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by mattsev15
but what is your opinion on that audio file? doesnt it seem like it was the GF saying that because whoever said it had an accent


i can remember hii saying that his g/f is ukrainian or something like that.

Yet you have no valid point or evidence for your hoaxclaim.



posted on Feb, 20 2007 @ 05:48 PM
link   
lol the lack of evidence and hard to believe statements that they presented are my evidence that this is a hoax,and his g/f is russian. now tell me what you heard and thought of the audio file



posted on Feb, 20 2007 @ 05:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by mattsev15
lol the lack of evidence and hard to believe statements that they presented are my evidence that this is a hoax,and his g/f is russian. now tell me what you heard and thought of the audio file


that's all you have?


and as stated some posts back. i could not understand what she said. it could be "i can't see * " but that's free for interpretation, it's just someone's subjective assumption and not fact. even if she said it, it doesn't proof anything. When i say " i can't see the object you'd like to show me" it just means that _i_ can't see it (looking into the wrong direction etc.). that does not mean it's not there or that the whole thing is just made up.

you lack of evidence dude.

[edit on 20-2-2007 by KillTheShill]



posted on Feb, 20 2007 @ 06:05 PM
link   
no i dont lack evidence buddy maybe you lack of intelligence.i can gurantee this is a hoax

[edit on 20-2-2007 by mattsev15]



posted on Feb, 20 2007 @ 06:10 PM
link   

Originally posted by mattsev15
no i dont lack evidence buddy maybe you lack of intelligence.i can gurantee this is a hoax

[edit on 20-2-2007 by mattsev15]

Again, support your claim with good evidence. Assumptions are no evidence



5. Sidetrack opponents with name calling and ridicule. This is also known as the primary 'attack the messenger' ploy, though other methods qualify as variants of that approach. Associate opponents with unpopular titles such as 'kooks', 'right-wing', 'liberal', 'left-wing', 'terrorists', 'conspiracy buffs', 'radicals', 'militia', 'racists', 'religious fanatics', 'sexual deviates', and so forth. This makes others shrink from support out of fear of gaining the same label, and you avoid dealing with issues.
6. Hit and Run. In any public forum, make a brief attack of your opponent or the opponent position and then scamper off before an answer can be fielded, or simply ignore any answer. This works extremely well in Internet and letters-to-the-editor environments where a steady stream of new identities can be called upon without having to explain criticism, reasoning -- simply make an accusation or other attack, never discussing issues, and never answering any subsequent response, for that would dignify the opponent's viewpoint.

9. Play Dumb. No matter what evidence or logical argument is offered, avoid discussing issues except with denials they have any credibility, make any sense, provide any proof, contain or make a point, have logic, or support a conclusion. Mix well for maximum effect.


You know dude, you just throw something into the room without any real evidence other than your own subjective claim. Get the facts, try to get the full list of videos and images before you make such claims. It's possible and it's easy. It's just one click.

[edit on 20-2-2007 by KillTheShill]



posted on Feb, 20 2007 @ 06:16 PM
link   
ok my evidence is viewing their evidence wich are some photos,videos,and audio recordings wich are not clear and are hard to make out so there for i can make any assumptions i want because we are not 100% sure that what they supposedly saw was some type of a UFO
.for all we know this could be a hoax!! i am not the one that is trying to prove that they saw a UFO i am against that they saw a UFO so you are the ones that need the evidence because anyone that wants to can analize there videos and photos and decide wether or not they support their theory.so you need to do the work and some how convince me that this is a UFO because you dont really know what it was and i dont think it was a UFO at all i think they are making it up sorry please hurry up with the evidence that proofs it was a UFO

[edit on 20-2-2007 by mattsev15]

[edit on 20-2-2007 by mattsev15]

[edit on 20-2-2007 by mattsev15]

[edit on 20-2-2007 by mattsev15]



posted on Feb, 20 2007 @ 06:24 PM
link   

Originally posted by mattsev15
ok my evidence is viewing their evidence wich are some photos,videos,and audio recordings wich are not clear and are hard to make out so there fore i can make any assumptions i want because we are not 100% sure that what they supposedly saw was some type of a UFO
.for all we know this could be a hoax!! i am not the one that is trying to prove that they saw a UFO i am against that they saw a UFO so you are the ones that need the evidence because anyone that wants to can analize there videos and photos and decide wether or not they support their theory.so you need to do the work and someone how convince me that this is a UFO because you dont really know what it was

[edit on 20-2-2007 by mattsev15]

[edit on 20-2-2007 by mattsev15]




14. Demand complete solutions. Avoid the issues by requiring opponents to solve the crime at hand completely, a ploy which works best with issues qualifying for rule 10.
19. Ignore proof presented, demand impossible proofs. This is perhaps a variant of the 'play dumb' rule. Regardless of what material may be presented by an opponent in public forums, claim the material irrelevant and demand proof that is impossible for the opponent to come by (it may exist, but not be at his disposal, or it may be something which is known to be safely destroyed or withheld, such as a murder weapon.) In order to completely avoid discussing issues, it may be required that you to categorically deny and be critical of media or books as valid sources, deny that witnesses are acceptable, or even deny that statements made by government or other authorities have any meaning or relevance.
20. False evidence. Whenever possible, introduce new facts or clues designed and manufactured to conflict with opponent presentations -- as useful tools to neutralize sensitive issues or impede resolution. This works best when the crime was designed
with contingencies for the purpose, and the facts cannot be easily separated from the fabrications.


Somebody already analyzed the videos and posted the captures of the videos. he worked a bit with them and then posted his results and his opinion.

He's more credible than you are. He was able to support his opinion with evidence, you are not able to do this.

btw: if you want to know the truth then do your own research. i've done it, the other poster did it...the only person that didn't is you.

When you claim something then you must bring up supporting good evidence. that's how things work here.

[edit on 20-2-2007 by KillTheShill]



posted on Feb, 20 2007 @ 06:29 PM
link   
lol i gurantee that this is a hoax.his analisis of the photos means nothing i bet you cant even figure out whats in those pictures so please shut your mouth you know nothing and cant proof what those photos are of



posted on Feb, 20 2007 @ 06:34 PM
link   

Originally posted by mattsev15
lol i gurantee that this is a hoax.his analisis of the photos means nothing i bet you cant even figure out whats in those pictures so please shut your mouth you know nothing and cant proof what those photos are of




5. Sidetrack opponents with name calling and ridicule. This is also known as the primary 'attack the messenger' ploy, though other methods qualify as variants of that approach. Associate opponents with unpopular titles such as 'kooks', 'right-wing', 'liberal', 'left-wing', 'terrorists', 'conspiracy buffs', 'radicals', 'militia', 'racists', 'religious fanatics', 'sexual deviates', and so forth. This makes others shrink from support out of fear of gaining the same label, and you avoid dealing with issues.
9. Play Dumb. No matter what evidence or logical argument is offered, avoid discussing issues except with denials they have any credibility, make any sense, provide any proof, contain or make a point, have logic, or support a conclusion. Mix well for maximum effect.
13. Alice in Wonderland Logic. Avoid discussion of the issues by reasoning backwards or with an apparent deductive logic
which forbears any actual material fact.
19. Ignore proof presented, demand impossible proofs. This is perhaps a variant of the 'play dumb' rule. Regardless of what material may be presented by an opponent in public forums, claim the material irrelevant and demand proof that is impossible for the opponent to come by (it may exist, but not be at his disposal, or it may be something which is known to be safely destroyed or withheld, such as a murder weapon.) In order to completely avoid discussing issues, it may be required that you to categorically deny and be critical of media or books as valid sources, deny that witnesses are acceptable, or even deny that statements made by government or other authorities have any meaning or relevance.


you'll notice that ATS forbids name calling and insults.

From what I can see, you could very well be a disinfo agent.



posted on Feb, 20 2007 @ 06:36 PM
link   
well what do you mean?



posted on Feb, 20 2007 @ 09:32 PM
link   

originally posted by KillTheShill
Associate opponents with unpopular titles such as 'kooks', 'right-wing', 'liberal', 'left-wing', 'terrorists', 'conspiracy buffs', 'radicals', 'militia', 'racists', 'religious fanatics', 'sexual deviates', and so forth.



From what I can see, you could very well be a disinfo agent.


I would say that "disinfo agent" qualifies as an unpopular title. You obviously meant it to be.

Pot, meet kettle


[edit on 2/20/2007 by eaglewingz]



posted on Feb, 20 2007 @ 11:59 PM
link   

Originally posted by mattsev15
ok my evidence is viewing their evidence wich are some photos,videos,and audio recordings wich are not clear and are hard to make out so there for I can make any assumptions I want because we are not 100% sure that what they supposedly saw was some type of a UFO
.for all we know this could be a hoax!! I am not the one that is trying to prove that they saw a UFO I am against that they saw a UFO so you are the ones that need the evidence because anyone that wants to can analize there videos and photos and decide wether or not they support their theory.so you need to do the work and some how convince me that this is a UFO because you don’t really know what it was and I don’t think it was a UFO at all I think they are making it up sorry please hurry up with the evidence that proofs it was a UFO


Nobody has to "Prove" that this is a UFO. In fact the OP never claimed it was a UFO. He and his GF have been open to suggestions and very forthcoming with any and all evidence, answered all questions and most importantly have stuck around through the many nay sayers and finger pointers such as yourself. For that I applaud them and thank them for the ability to overlook people such as yourself and attempt to help shed light on this event.

In closing go ahead and compile an evidenced list supporting your claim of hoax. By that I don't mean "my evidence is the video and photos". Use pictures, time stamps from the audio and or video and support your statements with proper evidence and then draw your conclusions. Until then do the rest of us a favor and stop triple posting the same thing over and over again.

~Anathema

```````````````````````````
Fixed italics

[edit on 22/2/07 by masqua]



posted on Feb, 21 2007 @ 02:07 AM
link   

Originally posted by KillTheShill
A hoaxer would simply put more effort in it. He would try to make a good video or picture from what he claims he has seen.


Ah, yes, but what if the hoaxer knows we're going to think like that?
To avoid the claim of "too good to be true", he shoots some inconclusive video that is difficult to pin down either way. Then the hoax would rest on the story behind the evidence. Of course, the veracity of eyewitness testimony is almost impossible to verify under the standard circumstances of internet UFO reports.

Just as I made an erroneous conclusion after misidentifying the camera's CCD defect, both sides need to base judgement on the correct evidence presented. Not what they think the situation or motivation is.

[edit on 2/21/2007 by eaglewingz]



posted on Feb, 21 2007 @ 02:37 PM
link   
ok we know its not a UFO,they were just seeing things or made it up,so just close this thread and close your mouths



posted on Feb, 21 2007 @ 03:39 PM
link   

Originally posted by mattsev15
ok we know its not a UFO,they were just seeing things or made it up,so just close this thread and close your mouths

Only because YOU say so doesn't mean it's fact.

Support your unlogical CLAIMS with good evidence and also stop the name calling now. Crying for a "shut up" of posters here won't help to make your point, from post to post you're loosing more credibility.



posted on Feb, 21 2007 @ 04:02 PM
link   
lol I gurantee if we find the truth about this supposed UFO encounter that it will be a hoax.i gurantee it







 
12
<< 15  16  17    19  20  21 >>

log in

join