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: 26
51
<< 23  24  25    27  28  29 >>

log in

join
share:

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

Originally posted by pjslug

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.


Excuses. All I am hearing is excuses. If they were photoshopped, ATS members would be showing us how all over this thread. Go look at any UFO thread and you will see at least a dozen examples of photoshop jobs done on both small and huge images. These are not fake and you cannot prove that they are. If you were truly on the fence, you would be looking at those photos for any reason to doubt them but instead you are merely claiming that either way, they would be too good for you to tell so why bother. All the proof you need is already in this thread. Sorry, he was not in my wedding so I do not have photos of us hanging out together, back when he used another name and had a different life. Go to the town hall and look some stuff up.

Those pics are real and you know it. Why bother mention 17 years experience only to then claim that big files are just too complex for you to examine. Shhhhhhh. If what you are going to tell us about you does not help anyone, do you really need to tell anyone?

You set yourself up as the person to determine the authenticity of those photos and now you just want to back away from that statement? What proof do you have that Reed existed before....let's say 1988. Can you show me where he was born and to whom? Can you prove he has a bracelet that makes you invisible? Can you prove that is a real alien body and not just a bad puppet? Can you prove this man is any of the things he claims? Can you prove how Mr. Chacon got a degree in a subject not offered? Can you prove anything? All it takes to prove this story wrong is to look up any of the facts stated at UFOwatchdog. I am more than willing to see anything you have to prove this story with other than the 3 crappy videos being passed around and around. Please show us some. What are you even asking me to prove? Reality? The truth? Facts? I want proof of at least a little of this "Reed" story and I have gotten none. That one story at UFOwatchdog has enough facts and proof in it but apparently the writing is too sophisticated for you as well.




posted on Feb, 18 2009 @ 06:08 PM
link   
reply to post by Luciferdescending
 


So if you checked out these records at town hall, why didn't you bring copies of the records to show us?

I'm sure ufowatchdog and co. have received thousands of e-mails asking them to substantiate their claims and post their supposed evidence. They say they are in possession of a video confirming their story. SO WHERE IS IT?!?!?! WHY IN GODS NAME HAVE THEY NOT POSTED IT??? Because they have no such video. It's that simple.

Again, I am not stating Reed's story is true or conclusive, but what is conclusive in my opinion is that these watchdog sites have no evidence to substantiate their claims.

Reed has posted all the evidence he claims to have. If his identity has been completely deleted by the government, it would be hard to find any records of his existence under the name Jonathan Reed. There are high resolution photos of the alien and the obelisk, not just the low-quality videos. And according to Reed, they were all taken with a film camera. That means that any digital file (scan) of the photographs would be inconclusive when being studied for Photoshop alterations. If we had the original negatives, then we could determine if they are a forgery.

I have no reason to doubt his case based on the story from the watchdog sites. They have provided no proof of their claims.

We keep on going in circles here and it is pointless. Without the ability to authenticate the original evidence for ourselves, we are at a dead end.



posted on Feb, 18 2009 @ 06:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by pjslug

I have no reason to doubt his case based on the story from the watchdog sites. They have provided no proof of their claims.

We keep on going in circles here and it is pointless. Without the ability to authenticate the original evidence for ourselves, we are at a dead end.


You should doubt the story based on the story and the teller. If you think the government erased his past, then why are they letting him live on to tell his tale now? Can you even begin to prove those photos of him are fake? Can you even attempt to answer the questions I have already asked and you dodged?



posted on Feb, 18 2009 @ 06:55 PM
link   
reply to post by Luciferdescending
 


I'm not dodging anything. I answer what I can. I won't claim to know something I have no knowledge of. That is why I am on the fence with this case.

How about you? Why did you not answer my question about bringing copies of the records with you?



posted on Feb, 18 2009 @ 07:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by pjslug


How about you? Why did you not answer my question about bringing copies of the records with you?


because I had already given you a list of questions that I am still waiting for an answer too. Then I asked a bunch more in the next post as well. Anytime you feel like answering, I have my answer to your one question all ready.



posted on Feb, 18 2009 @ 07:23 PM
link   
I'm with you Luci.....and a litte something for "pjslug"......you can take your comments on someone else's "points" and stick 'em up your self rightous, condescendeing ars!! Since you don't know "LuciferDescending" personally, you shouldn't be so fast to insult her! I'm sick of people like you that can't seem to have a debate without taking a cheap shot at somebody else that they want to feel smarter than! And to save you the trouble of pointing a finger at me, I'm quite aware that I have taken a shot too, but not without the good intent of taking up for another member who shouldn't have to listen to someone like you! Can we not just stay on the fence together without getting juvenile here? Honestly, are we not here for the same purpose, or do you guy's enjoy this? None of us are actually Reed himself, so maybe we could just stick to sharing information and evidence and let everyone else choose for themselves which side of the fence to jump off of!



posted on Feb, 19 2009 @ 04:25 AM
link   
Pjslug, you are correct, you won't find any records of a Jonathan Reed, because his real name is Jonathan Bradley Rutter. Now where is your proof that UFO Watchdog is a disinfo site.

Or maybe just forget about the two sites you claim are disinfo, what about the other sites that have also looked into the case and found that Rutter isn't exactly Mr. Innocent? are they disinfo sites as well?

No one replied to my previous post. Are you stuck when it comes to finding REAL evidence?



posted on Feb, 19 2009 @ 12:05 PM
link   
reply to post by PimpyMcgibbins
 


shuuuut up all u wonna do is create negative feedback. Intel u r put that situation n go through things he did such as a loss of close friends and family just tell us that there something out there with proof your jus talking and aint saying nuffin. And the only reason for moving is cause they banned him getting any type of job anywhere n still tell this day are trying to kill him i would do the same thing



posted on Feb, 19 2009 @ 05:34 PM
link   

Originally posted by Aspie
Pjslug, you are correct, you won't find any records of a Jonathan Reed, because his real name is Jonathan Bradley Rutter. Now where is your proof that UFO Watchdog is a disinfo site.

Or maybe just forget about the two sites you claim are disinfo, what about the other sites that have also looked into the case and found that Rutter isn't exactly Mr. Innocent? are they disinfo sites as well?

No one replied to my previous post. Are you stuck when it comes to finding REAL evidence?


If you have been paying attention (and I know you have) these Reed supporters do not present proof, evidence, or even try to make a case. They only tear down what others put forth. Why? Because it is easy to sit at a keyboard and yell liar but going and doing real research and having anything to make their case with is hard. Anyone just stumbling upon this thread will do well to notice that there is no evidence whatsoever to support Reed in any way and yet there are plenty of his fans here claiming that everything else is disinfo. I am still waiting for just one piece of evidence in favor of "Reed." Just one.



posted on Feb, 19 2009 @ 11:57 PM
link   
Actually, Reed`s supporters have been providing evidence, but unfortunately the evidence has`nt been able to hold any water so far.

As far as Reed`s credentials/history being erased by the government, I dont buy that.

Maybe the investigators have over looked somthing.
I dont have the resources at the moment, but maybe someone could produce his high school yearbook with him using his real name, to prove that he is really Rutter and not Reed.
There`s no way the government could grab every alumni`s copy of the the yearbook and change it.
Also I would look for employment records not under Jonathan Reed (because it wont be there), but under Jonathan Ruter during the time of the aleged encounter.
That might seal the coffin when it comes to his credibility.

Now on the other side of the fence, if some feel UFO watchdog is infact a disinfo site, why not challenge Royce`s claims?
Find out the name of the private investigator? Break down all of Royce`s findings with a microscope?

Find out who was on the investigating team described on the Seattle Chat Club page. Then break down their evidence for yourselves.
That would be much better than Youtube videos.

So instead of blindly calling somthing a disinfo site.....prove it by researching them and finding discrepencies in their findings, instead just blindly believing what Reed`s inner circle says.

If you dont know yet, UFOwatchdog does have pages in which they praise credible UFO investigators too. Not just the Hall of Shame.

Again, im still calling hoax, until good credible evidence is converted to proof. Then i`ll change my mind.

[edit on 20-2-2009 by johnjohn808]



posted on Feb, 20 2009 @ 12:05 AM
link   

Originally posted by johnjohn808
Actually, Reed`s supporters have been providing evidence, but unfortunately the evidence has`nt been able to hold any water so far.



I guess I missed that part. Aside from a few youtube videos, have they shown anything? Even the youtube videos are not what his supporters claimed they were but I do not count youtube as evidence.



posted on Feb, 20 2009 @ 04:05 AM
link   
I wonder what happened to Visionandtruth?
It`s been awhile now, and i wanted to debate it with him/her more if im not on their ignore list anymore.
I would be stoked if my questions that i`ve posted in this thread would be answered by visionandtruth.

It seems like he left to let some here bicker amongst ourselves.



posted on Feb, 20 2009 @ 04:50 AM
link   
Just pokeing my head in to see whats new!

Ever thought of flying the white flag here.

No doubt this thread will last as long as the drone hoax?

Call it stale mate guys.

Keep well



posted on Feb, 20 2009 @ 11:44 AM
link   

Originally posted by johnjohn808

Maybe the investigators have over looked somthing.
I dont have the resources at the moment, but maybe someone could produce his high school yearbook with him using his real name, to prove that he is really Rutter and not Reed.

[edit on 20-2-2009 by johnjohn808]


Rutter admitted that Reed was not his last name on C2C on his last appearance. He claims he did so, so that persons within the govt. looking for him would find it harder to locate him. For all we know, his last name may not even be Rutter. At any rate, if these events really happened to me, I'd prolly want my name changed too.



posted on Feb, 20 2009 @ 03:00 PM
link   
Yea hiding at publicly announced UFO conferences should really keep him safe. Maybe they might find Bin Laden hiding there as well.



posted on Feb, 20 2009 @ 07:31 PM
link   
Im glad that he admitted that about his name.
I do though, still question things like:
If he`s really running for his life, why is he so public and can easily be found?

Whats up with Chacon`s credentials?

How does someone like Chacon suddenly become a credible microbiologist, when his employer vouches that he was an employee of his convenience store for 5 years while all of this was going on?

There`s alot more that just does`nt jive.

Man, I try to keep an open enough mind with this case, but there`s alot about it that does`nt add up and just screams hoax.

I attempted to watch a 2hr video with Rutter as the speaker.
I lasted about 20 minutes and could`nt take it.

It was at some UFO confrence kinda thing back in 2000 which featured Rutter, Raith, and his publisher.

The MC, really lead the jury before introducing the speakers.
Instead of saying somthing like "These people are going to tell you their story and present their evidence. Weigh the evidence and make up your own mind", he started off warning the audience of disinfo campaigns against Reed on the internet.

I always wanted to check out one of these confrences in hope that I could get some answers to my questions about extraterrestrial life.
But if it`s that biased, I dont think I want to attend one anymore.


I think I believed this case in the very beginning. Well, maybe I was more hoping that it was real.
Some want the question answered so bad that we accept any answer that even remotely fits the question.
I think having a skeptical mind is good for instances such as that.

Sorry for my rant.



posted on Feb, 20 2009 @ 08:48 PM
link   
reply to post by johnjohn808
 


If you haven't watched all the conferences and all the video evidence, how can you make a judgement on it? You owe it to yourself to watch all the information in its entirety.



posted on Feb, 20 2009 @ 09:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by pjslug
reply to post by johnjohn808
 


If you haven't watched all the conferences and all the video evidence, how can you make a judgement on it? You owe it to yourself to watch all the information in its entirety.


You`re right.
But i`ve watched quite a few of them confrences and all of the availible videos on youtube and other video sharing sites that I could find through out the years.
And not counting how the MC led the audience on this one, i`ve found Rutter`s lectures all the same. Nothing new.
Although someone brought up the that Reed originally said that the blinking alien was just a reflection. He now says it blinked.
It`s stuff like that that makes me very skeptical towards this case.

They had a segment in it from a TV interview where Rutter was on the phone, and I decided to turn it off when the interviewers started leading him and answering their own questions to give his story credibility. Which is probably why it was added to the lecture video.

Now pjslug, i do respect you being on the fence with this one.
But have you scrutinized with a microscope all the evidence brought forth by the sites you call disinfo sites?

I`ve been trying to do it from both angles for years, and i`ve come to the conclusion that the "disinfo sites" evidence against Reed is heavier than Reed`s evidence for his story.

Im honest kind of tired of watching all the lectures because it`s just the same info. Not just Reed`s lectures, but almost everyone`s seems like they memorized a script.
Kind like watching a big time wrestling match between the same wrestlers one night in a certain city. Then they wrestle again the next night, and it`s exactly the same moves with the same ending.

I wish someone will comeout and say "Hey, this is the one already" but so far that has`nt been the case.

I need evidence that converts into proof, and i`ll change my mind. I`d be stupid not to.

[edit on 21-2-2009 by johnjohn808]



posted on Feb, 20 2009 @ 10:16 PM
link   
Better to watch the BS videos on youtube than pay Rutter for his scam dvd's. Although you will not be able to reclaim the two hours of your life that you wasted.

I would rather have hot needles inserted into my eyeballs than suffer through any more of Rutters crap fake crying videos. Oh and why does Rutter's face always have the expression like he's in a room and someone just let off a big eggy fart?



posted on Feb, 20 2009 @ 10:44 PM
link   
Also, the lectures have`nt answered any of my questions that i still have.

Watching Reed`s lecture after lecture is just the same as visionandtruth just avoiding the hard questions and posting the same videos over and over without ever answering anything.

You know, like asking a question about Reed`s past (for credibility) and being answered with a youtube video showing the alien blinking which has absolutely nothing to do with the question asked.

If this story turns out to be true, it would be the biggest event in the history of the world.
But if it is proven to be fake which it`s leaning towards for me, and the majority here and other forums have concluded it as a hoax, then alot of people are going to feel (or are feeling) cheated, and may feel disgusted with the whole UFO phenomina.
Then how will the subject ever be taken serious?

So the outcome of this case affects not just the case itself or Reed`s wallet, but all of UFOlogy and it`s credibility.



[edit on 20-2-2009 by johnjohn808]



new topics

top topics



 
51
<< 23  24  25    27  28  29 >>

log in

join