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.

 

Ron Paul Subliminal message?

page: 4
14
<< 1  2  3   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 6 2008 @ 11:30 PM
link   
Get real, whistler. This message was intentionally inserted. The Ron Paul campaign had nothing to do with it and nothing to gain by doing it. Try again.




posted on Feb, 6 2008 @ 11:48 PM
link   

Originally posted by IMAdamnALIEN

It still reads 1030 for views!

[edit on 4-2-2008 by IMAdamnALIEN]


Maybe this is the real message:

TITLE 18 > PART I > CHAPTER 47 > § 1030

§ 1030. Fraud and related activity in connection with computers:

www4.law.cornell.edu...

Could this be a message within a message about vote machine tampering and fraud??

Discuss this amongst yourselves. . .



posted on Feb, 7 2008 @ 12:39 AM
link   
I can't be 100% sure obviously, but if it was a normal direction/cue for the production team, they don't use the on-air audio systems for that kind of stuff like "We are going to Obama after this."

[edit]
i do however think it's possible that's what's being said. if we could find out that they actually did have Obama right after that segment, then it's plausible that's what's being said.
[/edit]

They most likely have what's know as a ClearCom system for this kind of thing, by far the #1 method of communicating within a production krew.
www.clearcom.com...
Not only would it not be hooked up to the on-air audio systems, but even after the several layers of audio processing it just would not have the kind of bass content that's heard on the mic in this clip. ClearCom does that on purpose, mainly to reduce "popped P's" and wind noise, but also bass bleeding in during high-volume concerts etc, where you have camera guys working right in front of large-scale audio systems... piles of subwoofers in their faces basically.


[edit on 7-2-2008 by fwombats]



posted on Feb, 7 2008 @ 12:58 AM
link   
reply to post by whistleryank3
 


I'm not even sure why I'm replying to your ignorant post.. But, nevertheless, I am. You really think that this is the crowd? It comes in too clearly to be the crowd. Have you ever been to any sort of sporting event? You can't clearly make out voices in a huge crowd like that. Plus, this voice is louder than the crowd. How could a voice be picked up by the crowd outside the window with no microphones out there? That would be even more odd than what is present. As for the 1030 views, I was simply wondering why it had been like that for quite some time. Also, if you read all the posts, which I doubt you did you would've seen Alien quoted my post from youtube that said there were over 8000 views on the video the night before, and the next morning there are 1030. That doesn't seem fishy to you? How does a video lose 7000 views over night? I was not aware how youtube calculated its views. That's not what I was trying to make a big deal about, just the fact that the video had 7000 less views than the night before when I first watched it. I am going to politely ask you not to post in my threads ever again. Kthx.



posted on Feb, 7 2008 @ 01:04 AM
link   
reply to post by Trauma
 


WOW Trauma, I believe that site fully. 9/11 conditioning has been going on a LONG time.. there is no way all of those movies randomy had that stuff randomly. Especially that simpsons one like you pointed out, and the one with the gremlins struck me as very disturbing. Very nice website, and that could be a thread in its own right



posted on Feb, 7 2008 @ 02:32 AM
link   
reply to post by Ketzer22
 


actually, it's completely possible that the youtube system simply allowed you (or all of north america and europe) to view an earlier version of the page after a more current version of the page had been viewed... before the two sub-systems had brought each other (or whatever master control system, if any, oversees the stats/databases) up to speed.

i used to manage around 150 computers that were handling a VERY intense data-driven website that was, at the time i left, pushing out between 80-100 million pageviews per day. and i have no doubt that it's nowhere near as complicated as YouTube's systems AND it's CDN.

As for the crowd microphones outside, they are for sure using them in the audio of the MTV segment in question. You can clearly hear the volume being attenuated back & forth even during the moment where this "mystery" voice comes in. And they are NOT near anyone, more than likely they are either setup in a window in the Viacom building, somewhere on the 3rd floor or above, and/or are permanently mounted & weather-proofed on the outside of the building, at least 30ft up in the air I would imagine. I've done plenty of crowd recording for live multi-tracked recordings, and the mics sound like they are at least 30-40ft away from the crowd - if they are not zoom (aka hyper/super-cardioid) microphones. if they are zoom mics then they are considerably farther, and you can tell because the crowd sounds almost like what you would expect to hear in a stadium.

They could probably have had at least 1 person outside with a hand-held microphone.... but my point is, if they actually turned that up to a level that would be relatively audible against Ron Paul's incoming feed's audio.... you would hear a VERY loud crowd sound in comparison to what you're hearing from the microphones they are using to capture the overall crowd sound - mainly it's the volume. The volume of the crowd is being mixed in considerably lower, ESPECIALLY before it got hammered by the multiple layers of audio processing.

This is not a microphone that was, if used outside of the Viacom building or somewhere in Ron Paul's sat feed, NOT used anywhere near the crowd outside the Viacom building at the time. Not even an Audix OM-7 has 10% of the off-axis rejection you would need to keep the crowd that quiet, and the mystery voice that loud.



posted on Feb, 7 2008 @ 06:07 AM
link   
reply to post by fwombats
 


Very nice to hear from, apparently, an industry-insider.
You seemed to destroy whistler's agrument which, I see, he hasn't come back to defend even since I posted again. Star for you my friend.



posted on Feb, 7 2008 @ 06:08 AM
link   
reply to post by fwombats
 


i don't understand how I double post

[edit on 7-2-2008 by Ketzer22]



posted on Feb, 7 2008 @ 02:39 PM
link   
reply to post by Twisted Pair
 


Okay that is an extremely weird coincidence. I think you might be onto something here. I searched for a while to see if 1,030 had any significance but didn't come up with anything.
This could be going back to the idea that the NWO arrogantly displays their nefarious activities in front of your face.



posted on Feb, 8 2008 @ 10:25 AM
link   

Originally posted by Trauma
reply to post by Twisted Pair
 


Okay that is an extremely weird coincidence. I think you might be onto something here. I searched for a while to see if 1,030 had any significance but didn't come up with anything.
This could be going back to the idea that the NWO arrogantly displays their nefarious activities in front of your face.


Or that the NWO doesn't care not one bit and what is usually attributed to nefarious world encompassing organizations, are more likely fools who know practically nothing about the larger picture. Then if someone is foolish enough to say in this day and time that they are going to bomb someone, and are caught, they are in for a world of hurt. If not, well they will do something stupid eventually, and the NWO will let things happen the way they happen.



posted on Feb, 8 2008 @ 10:25 AM
link   
Double post! WHAMO!

[edit on 8-2-2008 by GideonHM]



posted on Feb, 26 2009 @ 06:38 PM
link   
So, its weird that after all this time we never came up with a conclusion on this.. I guess the mystery will never be solved hehe



posted on Feb, 26 2009 @ 06:50 PM
link   
Wow very good, strange find.
My vote goes with the producers accidentally getting recorded.
Until I get proof of it having to do with "bombing infidels" that's the conclusion I make for myself.




top topics



 
14
<< 1  2  3   >>

log in

join