[HOAX]UFO Video No one will Host..??[HOAX]

Originally posted by crackerjack
Hi i'm new here, but I have read ATS threads for months, why do members always bicker like this?

Mod Edit - Please stay on topic. The video is the discussion here.


[edit on 29-12-2007 by elevatedone]

Well, here in the UK it's getting quite late. Moreover, after watching this thread collapse into total obscurity, there’s not much else to do.

Mod Note: Please Stay on Topic

[edit on 29-12-2007 by DontTreadOnMe]

I remember that video from earlier in the year. Look at the beginning and you will see a phantom shadow skirt across the water before the CGI begins. Than look at the bushes move in the front of the craft but the bushes further back donot move. Ask yourself why some one would be videoing that particular location and just happens to get a craft run through the scene. Than ask where is the full video of the location and who videoed it. If I should view this video further, I am sure I will be point out other flaws to cause curiosity over.

CGI!

Edit: No flags and no stars for this....

[edit on 29-12-2007 by WorldShadow]

While I can appreciate that a thread may have run it's course, off-topic banter further distracts from the topic.

Please use the BTS forum and the u2us for personal discussions and chit chat.

Mod Note: Please Stay on Topic

reply to post by Jibbs


Looks like the old bait and switch.
I was waiting for the MIBs to kick down Springers front door.
I wonder when we will see the first REAL UFO video here on ATS.
If it's real, can ATS sell/give it to FOX News Channel???

The supposed UFO in the video doesn't satisfy the realistic dynamics of when an object that big and so close to the water, it should make ripples or tiny waves. The water was so still.

[edit on 29-12-2007 by amitheone]

reply to post by eaglewingz


Wow! I like the Brasil UFO video. It looks great.
I think You Tube would post any UFO video.
Night video and very bright UFO

Wait, have I missed something? What was that video about? That wasn't from TimeSlice, was it?

If so, that was bad CGI.

I was disappointed that I had to read 8 pages before the video was finally declared a hoax. (in this post) (yet the title still isn't changed to reflect this)

The OP claims to have had a copy of it on 8mm, yet it is clear from the JohnnyAnonymous analysis that CGI was used.

Can someone explain how CGI was embedded onto 8mm film?

IMO, emails and screenshots mean very little at this point.

EDIT: never mind, it seems the OP said it was shot in 8mm but never claims that he had possession of the film, (only a clip) my apologies. The thread should still be labeled HOAX since the video has already been declared as such. (there's still the matter of the missing 4 seconds)


[edit on 29/12/07 by ConspiracyNut23]

I would like to point out after looking for "ufo brazil" on youtube and finding 5 of the same video with 1 being from 1 year ago, 1 from 5 months ago, and the others in recent months of being posted, I must ask the OP to show the emails of the repositories denying the OP to post his video. Than I find it all over googlevideo in larger format to see little discrepancies.

Google Video Link

Originally posted by Timeslice

I own a very short video clip (8 seconds) that I have tried over and over to get posted on various video sites but no one will host it.

Where's the other 4 seconds of the clip? Have you sent it to someone here in ATS yet?

After I tried to post it on YouTube, it was immediately deleted. I then received an email from a person called Paul Clarke, working for YouTube who asked me where I had got the clip from and when and where was it taken.

Would it be possible for you to post a copy of that email here?

Originally posted by Timeslice
Undeterbed I posted the Video on LiveLeak, after the moderators had watched the clip, they deleted it and they even blacked-out the 'thumbnail' picture only visable in 'my account'.

What is your LiveLeak account?

Originally posted by Timeslice
I was subsequently emailed by LiveLeak and asked where I had got the clip from??

Once again would it be possible for you to post a copy of that email here?



-thanks



[edit on 29-12-2007 by balon0]

reply to post by WorldShadow


A real UFO should look like this:

I will say this "What a waste of my time!!!!". After reading 10 pages of BS based on nothing. Speculation after speculation, with those at ATS trying their best to get to the truth. As of now this is a ficticious piece of garbage, there is still no conclusion. I am sick of wasting my time following threads based on 'Nothing!' There are way too many threads like these on ATS. Yes, I have a choice to make, but the garble goes on and on and on, leading you to wait for the moment that it is considered a hoax or whatever the conclusion may be. Most stories here end up after clear and concise consideration...BS. I value my time.

Guz

Originally posted by Springer
reply to post by Atticus_Black

 

So in the mean time, I suggest everyone just chill and see what does or does not happen.

Springer...

THANKS.

The rush to roast this poster is real . . . cheap, imho.

Even if it took 24-48 hours for 'THE TRUEST TRUE TRUTH' to come out about it . . . so what.

Giving a bloke the benefit of the doubt DURING a reasonable process should be a minimum amount of civility expected, imho.

The number of posters casting aspersions to outright derisive accusations . . . and the rush to post such . . . has been a real drag to read.

There's more than enough time to give him some space to work the details out with the powers that be hereon.

Is everyone so ego deficient that their major claim to fame is to derisively assault such an OP FIRST and FOREMOST--is that the name of this blame/assault game?

I doubt the world is going to end within 24 hours. Patience is part of civility. It's certainly part of wisdom and maturity.

I am not going to jump to any conclusions but the OP was originally registered in 2005, only has a few posts, a few threads and all in 2007?

I find this very strange.

reply to post by Realtruth


I'm only in a position to accept the wiser-than-I experts on the technical details.

I am a little confused as to the 'ancient' Brazil hoaxed vid shown in this thread vs the new one offered--are they truly identical? Maybe I missed something. If they are not truly 100% identical, what's the differences?

In terms of the OP . . . I have no evidence of this--just conjecture . . .

But there could be some value to some . . . groups . . . in using an OP already a member . . . perhaps became a member for various reasons . . . but to use such a member to throw out such a bone and see how we gnaw on it with these particular specifics to it.

If I were part of the NWO oligarchy in charge of such technologies and getting all set to launch a trumped up war with ET . . . a la Carol Rosin and von Braun . . . I think I'd want to have explored a lot of

WHAT IF's about sites such as ATS well before launching such a war.

The bit about YouTube not hosting etc. . . . IF the powers that be are dinking with ATS membership in a probing experimental way--that detail might be one interesting one they would like to play with and see what ATS's responses would be . . . vis a vis leadership as well as membership.

Just speculating.

No offense intended to the OP who may well be all he claims to be in all respects. I have no personal evidence otherwise.

Another viewpoint.

Though hindsight, I think what should have happened is that the OP should have been instructed to send Springer a copy of the Youtube and other site's rejection notice IMMEDIATELY or face a post ban.

After all the OP claimed this in his post, and should have been willing to verify his claims.

If people knew they could no longer say outrageous things without IMMEDIATE verification we wouldn't have these 10 page 'string along' hoaxes.

Pussyfooting around and overlooking about 10 signs of a hoax may be fun for some, though.

My first thought was that Youtube et.al. can't even pull copyrighted vids off in a timely fashion for one thing, and for another, they don't routinely screen everything that's added. So that was a HUGE red flag.

The OP must be rolling on the floor laughing his butt off at the gullibility here.

Again, I think letting this kind of thing go on without immediate verification (at least to the Admin) detracts heavily from the reputation of ATS.

It also pits the honorable members against each other - WHICH IS probably one of the prime motives of the typical hoaxer - see how many long term ATS posters they can get banned or warned.

*(Edit: BTW, ask yourself just what kind of video would Youtube reject? In the realm of UFO videos - NOTHING. I mean seriously. The only thing I can think of, outside of nudity, torture, or murder would be if the vid showed nat'nl security codes or some kind of verifiable documentation and even then it would take time. AFAIK, videos posted by a regular Youtube subscriber are not 'lagged' but put up immediately.)

2 cents.



[edit on 29-12-2007 by Badge01]

Originally posted by Badge01
Though hindsight, I think what should have happened is that the OP should have been instructed to send Springer a copy of the Youtube and other site's rejection notice IMMEDIATELY or face a post ban.

Keep in mind the thread is only a day old. Maybe elevatedone should've froze the thread,(as threatened) then we wouldn't have had to read a bunch of inter-member bickering. However, if someone had an actual contribution to make, he/she wouldn't have been able to.

no harm done.



[edit on 29/12/07 by ConspiracyNut23]

actually, this was a good study in patience and the perceived NEED
to believe...interesting.sooner or later, the magic video will appear
and i would bet it will appear on this site. a fake will be spotted in
minutes here. too many advanced searchers, the perfect place. i
can wait.

reply to post by ConspiracyNut23


I would respectfully disagree on the 'no harm done'. Of course, no "harm", in the sense that the A&U forum is basically fantasyland and we all know it.

However, there have definitely been intelligent and resourceful members who no longer frequent this forum - so that's some 'harm'.

It also raised tension and caused inter-member bickering - we don't need that.

It's much easier to raise the standard just a little: you post a clear, and verifiable claim (here a Youtube rejection notice), then be prepared (though maybe not always required) to give immediate verification.

For the 10 people (heh) who really aren't savvy enough to send an email w/ attachment, they can always be unbanned after having this sorted out behind the scenes rather than waste everyone's time, and drive off valuable members. (remember I'm talking about post ban, not reading ban).

To me, it's akin to 'have an open mind, but not so open your brain falls out'.

As a matter of fact, if I had a REAL UFO/ET document or vid, I'd want to explore options behind the scenes and be cautious. I would NOT be offended by 'requirements' for validation, nor temporary post ban while I get my docs in order. I'd see it as a sign of professionalism on the part of ATS.

Again, my 2 cents.

Originally posted by BO XIAN
But there could be some value to some . . . groups . . . in using an OP already a member . . . perhaps became a member for various reasons . . . but to use such a member to throw out such a bone and see how we gnaw on it with these particular specifics to it.

Yeah, but wouldn't a hypothetical NWO that controls the whole world use their amazing tech to create a unique video for us to gnaw on?

What would they be proving by using a lame vid that's been repeatedly posted on YouTube and analyzed to the nth degree here on ATS?