[HOAX] Haiti UFO Video - YouTube - [HOAX]

I think you forgot some options, kinda kurious

1 - "Star this post if you think what ummofriend did was wrong but he shouldn't be banned because he wasn't a ATS member when he did it".

2 - "Star this post if you think what ummofriend did was OK but he does not deserve special treatment".

3 - "Star this post if you think what ummofriend did was wrong or OK but that is irrelevant to the treatment we should give him".

Originally posted by ArMaP
I think you forgot some options, kinda kurious

Your point is well taken, but I was striving more for a simple "yes / no" or "innocent / guilty" verdict. Perhaps your considerations could be introduced during sentencing.

The jury is still out. Now go back to page 91 and vote. Oh, and quit stealing those stars.

regards...kk

[edit on 25-8-2007 by kinda kurious]

Sorry, kk, but I will not vote on a poll where the options do not reflect my opinion.

Also, the way they are worded almost forces people to vote on one of the two.

So, in this case, consider my vote as a blank.

Originally posted by kinda kurious
So here is my little "Social Experiment". I am offering this Pre-Post to allow mods a "heads-up" to delete my next two. I am going to follow this post with one that reads:

Very creative! Nice way to create a poll in a forum that does not offer the option (many do). To those who are miffed that their particular take on this is not represented, please consider how awkward that would be. As slashdot says:

Don't complain about lack of options. You've got to pick a few when you do multiple choice. Those are the breaks.

The basic issue is as kinda kurious represents. Should ummo be treated like GhostRaven or someone with special privileges to violate the T&C with impunity? Splitting hairs on this issue is not relevant.

My only problem with the poll is the words that are used.

If the options were impartial, like "do you think what he did was against the T&C and should be banned" and "do you think that what he did is OK", I wouldn't have any problem with it.

The way the options are written imply that those that think that what he did was OK should also consider that he should be treated like a rock star, and for those that think that what he did was wrong must be in favour of banning him.

BREAKING NEWS...THIS JUST IN...SMOKING GUN...LASSIE, THE BARN IS ON FIRE!

Today CNN Headline News is running a story about this video. They mention the LA Times article and pretty much quote it verbatim. ( They repeat it about every 20 minutes, so if you are in the US, you can check it out.)

It seems that some others on this forum have put the "clues" together to find out the source of this video. Heck, they even offered some clues themselves. As of yet, I have not......until now. Below is a frame grab I shot off my TV during the story. When they show the "Grannie" video, there is a "courtesy slug" in upper frame. Why they did this, I do not know. The rest you can figure out on your own.



This is on national TV so I don't think I am outing anyone. BTW, the female news anchor intro's the story with a comment about wearing tin-foil hats. Perhaps this is why hoaxes don't bode well for the UFO community.

If, in fact, the entity in the TV graphic is claiming ownership of this video and it is "rights managed" does it somehow suggest that this "has become" viral marketing for "ummofriends" upcoming project? Or, perhaps, they realize that they have a "tiger-by-the-tail" and are attempting to de-fuse this on his behalf. A strange twist indeed. Hey, watching TV does make you smarter!

Sorry, I just can't resist. 11 11 you were sooooooooooooooooooooooo wrong. regards.....kk

WARNING: The link posted after this will spoil the mystery. I encourage you to sleuth this on your own and not ruin the surprise. You'll enjoy it more if you figure it out for yourself.
V V V V V V V V V V V V V V V V V V V V V V V V V V V V V V V V V V V V V V V V V V

[edit on 25-8-2007 by kinda kurious]

The animator


I predict the video his 3 million views tonight.

[edit on 25-8-2007 by BlackedOut]

It disgusts me to no end how they post this HOAX on National News.

But... it is a good time to get the good evidence out now that the UFO topic is getting attention.




[edit on 25-8-2007 by The Coward]

To Isac Caret HOAX....


OWNED!!!!

This is how you do it, not with cheasy pics.

reply to post by The Coward


To make a comment like the one above sounds absolutely immature. Meanwhile, there still is no proof that the drones were hoaxed. This Haiti UFO was completely different and was an obvious fabrication from the start. The CARET documents and drones are on a whole other level than this story. There are pages deep of information and supporting diagrams to the story. You can't even compare the two. And noone, and I mean NOONE, has been able to prove that story a hoax yet.

And awfully strange how it hasn't gotten media coverage, don't you think? Why didn't they put the drones on TV? Sounds to me like they are trying to keep the lid on something.

The Coward how is this a good hoax?

As i said many pages back before it was confirmed that nobody would upload footage free to youtube when its potentialy worth millions of dollars in media rights. It doesnt make any sense. Also it just leaves everyone debating if its CGI or not.

At least santilli knew how to orchestrate a proper hoax. Promoting the film in the media and selling it to the highest bidders.

Anyone with footage that clear & uploads it to yioutube for free is a rank amatuer hoaxer- im not impressed in the slightest.

Its too clean, thats CGI's fingerprint, they've never managed to make something with CGI that looks realistic because its too perfect, this video looks to perfect to me.

It seems that some others on this forum have put the "clues" together to find out the source of this video. Heck, they even offered some clues themselves. As of yet, I have not......until now. Below is a frame grab I shot off my TV during the story. When they show the "Grannie" video, there is a "courtesy slug" in upper frame. Why they did this, I do not know. The rest you can figure out on your own.

So basically, you are telling us that you have been posting in this thread for many days without having bothered to do a basic google search on the only company mentioned in the L.A. times article?

Amazing. I will keep that in mind to judge the credibility of your future posts.

Please, people. May I suggest that we cut the noise down? This is why we have threads with a thousand + posts and no useful information for many pages. What a waste of time for everyone.

Originally posted by Netstriker
So basically, you are telling us that you have been posting in this thread for many days without having bothered to do a basic google search on the only company mentioned in the L.A. times article?

Ouch. Actually I had been to that company's site and spent a good half-hour there the first time around. I missed the hints that were given, that simple. Then, when I saw it on TV, went back and poof. After all, I am only sub-human. I missed it at first. I suspect others did too.

Amazing. I will keep that in mind to judge the credibility of your future posts.

Better yet, just don't read my future posts.

Please, people. May I suggest that we cut the noise down? This is why we have threads with a thousand + posts and no useful information for many pages. What a waste of time for everyone.

And somehow your negative, venom spewing post is not noise? Checking your posts for meaningful commentary on this thread....mmmm....just one. When I was attempting to verify that ummofriend was in fact French.

Originally posted by Netstriker
French is my first language and I am not very young. I have never heard that expression in my life...

Well that sure explains much about your cranky attitude. I don't know who “pisse en vos pommes frites” but why take it out on me? Are you upset because the hoaxer turned out to be a Frenchman? I think I will take your opinion, “avec un grain de sel.”

ADDED:
Oh and speaking of noise and wasted bandwidth. The one and only thread you ever started www.belowtopsecret.com...

Originally posted in ATS and quickly moved to BTS in the Jokes section. Wow, that is some great "useful information." Waste of time indeed. In the words of Napoleon, "Never interrupt your enemy while he is making a mistake." regards...kk

[edit on 27-8-2007 by kinda kurious]

UPDATE: Should anyone care, Barzolff814 = Ummofriend has a newly posted video on YouTube. It is titled, "Hoaxer Comes Clean". Read his description. Kinda an in your face rebuttal? Link here: www.youtube.com...

It is NOT a UFO video, rather, it is an animated cartoon on political conspiracy. At the end is a graphic to the site. www.hoaxart.com....

That site is not currently working and I could not get any WhoIs.net info.
( I got a strange response when I tried to do so saying there were too many requests from my IP today.) Oddly, it was my only one.

What do you all make of this new direction in Barzolff's work?
Can anyone find out if the site is real or not?
Is this an attempt to de-fuse the frenzy?
Does this change anyone's opinion?
Who are the voices in my head?

Also, the response to my informal tally of whether to ban ummofriend or not has been, to say the least, underwhelming. (Bottom of page 91)

Votes to ban ummofriend = 8
Votes not to ban ummofriend = 2
Votes suggesting I worded the questions wrong = 4 (ArMaP post)

Wow, of the thousands of members and responses to this thread, 14 votes total. I just don't get it. Where is the passion, the opinions? Why all the apathy towards this once-hot thread? Am I the only one who still cares about the outcome? Or am I just in denial?

regards...kk < flees, puts on Flame Retard-ant suit. > (sic)

[edit on 28-8-2007 by kinda kurious]

I think this whole thing clearly was research/viral marketing for his upcoming feature which is about a guy who starts a UFO Hoax and it gets out of control.

I wouldn't ban the guy if he wants to participate here. He is a UFO enthusiast himself (his name is Ummofriend) and I don't feel like he openly mocks anyone here or the site itself.

As a group, we were never convinced that this was real, but instead argued about the way to debunk it. That's a good thing. When something better/real comes along I think the UFO community will have a better skill set to deal with it.

Originally posted by kinda kurious
That site is not currently working and I could not get any WhoIs.net info.
( I got a strange response when I tried to do so saying there were too many requests from my IP today.) Oddly, it was my only one.

Here is some Whois information:

domain:        HOAXART.COM
owner-name:    Realitism
owner-address: Paris
owner-address: France
reg_created:   2007-08-19 14:49:49
expires:       2008-08-19 14:49:49
created:       2007-08-19 16:49:02
changed:       2007-08-19 16:49:02

The name was registered but the site does not exist, at least not yet.

And I don't think this changes my opinion about him or the situation. At least he didn't had the site prepared to cash in on the "UFO" case.

[edit on 28/8/2007 by ArMaP]

reply to post by ArMaP


Thanks ArMaP. I was getting "spoofed" with a whois.gandi.net blocker. Good job.

I am so glad to see you still here, still caring, and still contributing. While I agree the site was recently opened, it could simply be a "convenient" way out to de-fuse this as simply viral marketing for a website. Don't know, still walking the fence.

I respect your balanced judgement and contributions throughout this entire thread. I have learned much from you, and many others like you. I regret that my passion, zest, immaturity on this thread and yearning for closure has alienated me (pun intended) from others in this forum. This was my first real "close-call" and I realize I came off looking like Barney Fife. (actually, my hero) My poll was a disaster and divisive. I look forward to kicking back a bit, and seeing where this all leads. Greater minds than I will decide, gonna enjoy the ride.

To loosely quote Voltaire, "the sure way to be boring, is to say everything"
and I have certainly said too much.

Perhaps one day my avatar won't be so red from embarrassment.

kind regards, a gentlier, kuriouser....kk


[edit on 28-8-2007 by kinda kurious]

Originally posted by ummofriend
Barz
PS In my opinion Chad drones are fake.

Please expand on the above and at the same time state whether you had any involvement.

I don't believe that at any point the author ever attempted to pass off the footage as real.

Therefore no hoax so why ban.


[edit on 28-8-2007 by chunder]