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.

 

Johnathan Reed's Close-Up Alien Blinking Video - best footage ever? (video)

page: 25
51
<< 22  23  24    26  27  28 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 16 2009 @ 07:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by answers
There's no conclusive evidence to point either way, i'm leaning more onto Reed's story as its more entertaining to do so.


There is plenty of conclusive evidence. There is Reed/Rutter's past, history, friends, and the truth behind who the man really is. What else could you need? He is a proven pathological liar and a proven fraud and here he has a body and an artifact that can only be seen through grainy youtube videos or if you buy the DVD and still no footage of the link making anyone disappear. Any who is still waiting for the truth has summarily dismissed all of the evidence in their faces and are just waiting for someone to make this story more believable.




posted on Feb, 16 2009 @ 10:56 PM
link   
reply to post by Luciferdescending
 


It is not proven at all. 2 disinfo sites that have provided no evidence to backup their claims have no merit.



posted on Feb, 17 2009 @ 01:48 PM
link   


There is plenty of conclusive evidence. There is Reed/Rutter's past, history, friends, and the truth behind who the man really is. What else could you need?


That's not conclusive, the so called debunking evidence could easily be fabricated by any one and producing photo's of Reed riding a kids toy and speculation is hardly proving anything. Also having the evidence presented on a website resembling those shabby instant website templates does nothing to help it.



posted on Feb, 17 2009 @ 04:34 PM
link   
Same old answers from the 'believe anything squad'. As soon as someone does a serious investigation and finds faults with the case these people always throw the disinfo argument. And now because the info is not on a flashy website, they question its validity. Pathetic.



posted on Feb, 17 2009 @ 04:44 PM
link   
Edited because of double post.

[edit on 17-2-2009 by Bob Down Under]



posted on Feb, 17 2009 @ 04:46 PM
link   
reply to post by Bob Down Under
 


If you had looked through the past few pages of this thread, you would know that I already posted that information here.



posted on Feb, 17 2009 @ 04:46 PM
link   
Double Post

[edit on 2/17/2009 by pjslug]



posted on Feb, 17 2009 @ 04:48 PM
link   

Originally posted by pjslug
reply to post by Bob Down Under
 


If you had looked through the past few pages of this thread, you would know that I already posted that information here.



There you go!

Sorry about that



posted on Feb, 17 2009 @ 04:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by Aspie
Same old answers from the 'believe anything squad'. As soon as someone does a serious investigation and finds faults with the case these people always throw the disinfo argument. And now because the info is not on a flashy website, they question its validity. Pathetic.


Serious investigation?? Are YOU serious?? Where's the proof? Where is the audio recording for us to hear of the conversations? Where is the videotape they say they have? Where are all these records for us to see? All they put up were a few photographs that could be cloned in Photoshop in a matter of minutes (and I know this because I have been a graphic artist for 17 years).

It doesn't have to be a flashy website. That's not even close to being the point. Where'd you get that idea from? We question the validity because they have provided NO EVIDENCE TO SUBSTANTIATE THEIR CLAIMS! Only a few pages of novelesque style writing.



posted on Feb, 17 2009 @ 05:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by pjslug
reply to post by Luciferdescending
 


It is not proven at all. 2 disinfo sites that have provided no evidence to backup their claims have no merit.


Nooooooooo..... you have not bothered to look at the evidence. Please tell me what you looked into and how you looked into it to tell me that the things about Reed are not true. I have a feeling you have done NONE. Now, you can go the other way and present some proof that anything Reed says it true.

This is where you will fail. UFOwatchdog's story checks out to the smallest given detail. What about Reed's story checks out so far? He was not invited by the top scientist in the world to anything, he cannot demonstrate the invisibility bracelet and his video of the "alien" are horrible at best.

However, you can go and check out the things stated on UFOwatchdog. Perhaps you should. Let me know when you get back.



posted on Feb, 17 2009 @ 05:34 PM
link   

Originally posted by answers



That's not conclusive, the so called debunking evidence could easily be fabricated by any one and producing photo's of Reed riding a kids toy and speculation is hardly proving anything. Also having the evidence presented on a website resembling those shabby instant website templates does nothing to help it.


It amazes me how you all have a million reasons why you do not believe one thing and yet believe something far more ludicrous based on far less evidence. There are more than enough pics of Reed with people that you can still go interview. Do you think the wedding photos were fakes? There is more than enough photo graphical evidence to prove this man was with the people who are debunking him alone but you guys are good at blowing off everything aren't you?



posted on Feb, 17 2009 @ 05:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by pjslug
All they put up were a few photographs that could be cloned in Photoshop in a matter of minutes (and I know this because I have been a graphic artist for 17 years).



Then you should have no problem showing us the telltale signs of a photoshop job. It happens all the time here on ATS by members who do not brag of 17 years experience so it should be very very easy for you. I eagerly await your proof.



posted on Feb, 17 2009 @ 05:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by pjslug

It doesn't have to be a flashy website. That's not even close to being the point. Where'd you get that idea from?


Do you only read posts addressed to you or by you? Go up a little. Answers said

Also having the evidence presented on a website resembling those shabby instant website templates does nothing to help it.


Tada!



posted on Feb, 17 2009 @ 06:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by Luciferdescending
This is where you will fail. UFOwatchdog's story checks out to the smallest given detail. What about Reed's story checks out so far? He was not invited by the top scientist in the world to anything, he cannot demonstrate the invisibility bracelet and his video of the "alien" are horrible at best.


Prove it. Show me how it checks out. Supply the evidence. The burden of proof is on you being that you are a new member and have points in the negative. That tells me that you are not a very reputable or reliable source of information.



posted on Feb, 17 2009 @ 06:34 PM
link   

Originally posted by Luciferdescending
Then you should have no problem showing us the telltale signs of a photoshop job. It happens all the time here on ATS by members who do not brag of 17 years experience so it should be very very easy for you. I eagerly await your proof.


I am not bragging at all. I am merely stating my experience in the field. A good Photoshop cloning job can not be determined by a reduced quality, small size, low-res JPEG posted on the internet. I would need to see the original high-resolution file used for the cloning job. If a small file was used to clone, it would be very noticeable, which in these photos, it is not. Therefore, a high resolution scan or digital photo were used for cloning purposes, if in fact, his story is true, which I never claimed it to be. And EXIF data would serve no purpose, as the photo posted on the website is a reduced-size image anyway.

I have stated I am still on the fence and want to see more evidence from your hoax standpoint. But you have yet to provide any. Reed has posted far more evidence for the case than the disinfo sites have provided against it.



posted on Feb, 17 2009 @ 08:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by answers


That's not conclusive, the so called debunking evidence could easily be fabricated by any one and producing photo's of Reed riding a kids toy and speculation is hardly proving anything. Also having the evidence presented on a website resembling those shabby instant website templates does nothing to help it.




And apparently youtube is the word of god................



posted on Feb, 18 2009 @ 02:00 PM
link   
There hasn't been single piece of evidence in this thread to prove Rutter's case. Youtube videos of him talking at conferences, and off him breathing heavily in the woods do not constitute evidence.

Now all you Rutter supporters, can you please supply this:

1. Complete background check of his employment history, education, family, close friends, etc,

2. Proof of the dog "known as Suzy in his story" was Jonathan Reed/Rutters, with Dog Licenses, veterinarian records, etc.

3. The location/address of the house that Jonathan Reed/Rutter claimed he lived in at the time of this event, and proof that he rented it from the so-called Larry Arthur, now really known as Larry Sieber, and that Larry Sieber really owned it.

4. Full names of two other characters in his story, Dolly and Gary, so that they or their familes can be contacted and interviewed.

5. A complete testing of the supposed evidence from his encounter experience (videos, slides, pictures, negatives, etc,). The results of that testing and anaylsis published in a written form from the laboratory or facility, and the address/phone number of that laboratory/facility, so one is able verify the results.

6. A forensic examination of the supposed gunshot wound in Jonathan Reed/Rutter shoulder by a qualified Doctor/Pathologist, and those results made public.



posted on Feb, 18 2009 @ 02:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by pjslug
It is not proven at all. 2 disinfo sites that have provided no evidence to backup their claims have no merit.


Please provide evidence that these are disinformation websites. "Disinformation" is a loaded term and carries a certain meaning beyond just a dictionary definition; please provide evidence that they are disinformation, not just something you disagree with.

[edit on 18-2-2009 by SaviorComplex]



posted on Feb, 18 2009 @ 05:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by pjslug


Prove it. Show me how it checks out. Supply the evidence. The burden of proof is on you being that you are a new member and have points in the negative. That tells me that you are not a very reputable or reliable source of information.


So my points and my registration date somehow absolve you from needing to prove your case and puts the burden on me? I cannot show you all the evidence as you need to visit town halls and go look up records. You can do it yourself, I am not stopping you at all. The only reason there is no proof for you is because you have decided NOT to check out anything UFOwatchdog said. Do you think they faked all the photos too? If so, Reed has a really good lawsuit on his hands. In fact, it seems Reed would already have a great Libel suit based on the stories about him on the web. I and you can go and look up records that confirm the things said about him there.

Where is it we can go to check out anything from his story?
Why can't we get a video of the bracelet working?
How come Reed fans on here had to lie about him being involved with the "top scientist in the world" and being invited to present for Russian Cosmonauts?
Can you prove any of Reed's story at all in any way?

Sorry pal but you have a man who has commited identity theft and lied and then gave you some really poor quality videos of a barely functional puppet. What proof is there that anything Reed said was real??????
Any?

How about you get Reed in here to explain to us where he really was when he was known as Rutter.

How about you get him in here to explain why the main "scientist" backing him up claims to have a degree in microbiology from a school that does NOT offer a degree in microbiology.

What of his story can you or anyone else prove?????

The burden is not on me, you are just deflecting because you know that you will never be able to prove he is anything more than a fake.



posted on Feb, 18 2009 @ 05:59 PM
link   
I am pleased this discussion is still ongoing. Not for the sake of proving/disproving Reed's case, but because it has shown definitively that debunkers must provide evidence for their claims as well. Ex. Ufowatchdog. A true skeptic must look at both sides.



new topics

top topics



 
51
<< 22  23  24    26  27  28 >>

log in

join