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.

 

UFO releases intelligent moving spheres!! First ever video footage!

page: 83
656
<< 80  81  82    84  85  86 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 3 2009 @ 03:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by free_spirit
I have a copy of the original raw footages from both witnesses. There's nothing to hide and both footages are real meaning not tampered or CGI or anything like. Both videos show exactly what was in the sky wich remains unexplained.
Do the original raw footage of the second video also stops and changes to a different scene when the camera is following the "spheres" towards the ground? Or does it show something more?


If you insist this case is false then it's you against those 514 ATS members who flagged and applauded this case plus many other thousands who applauded the footages in luckymauro's YouTube channel, do you really think you have a chance?
Considering that many people flag the threads just to make them easier to find, I don't think that would be a great measure of the quality or importance of any data presented on ATS. I know that I don't give them the slightest importance, neither to stars, that most people give away when they like the subject or the poster instead of when they like the content (that was the original idea).

And truth is not a popularity contest.




posted on Sep, 3 2009 @ 04:13 PM
link   
reply to post by free_spirit
 


I honestly wasn’t aware of the fact that I was diverting any kind of attention. I thought that my conclusions openly implied that Pedro Hernandez and Alfred Carrillo are hoaxers.

There were a lot of hoaxers around in the past and there will be many more to come. People are hoaxing others just for fun. I hope the above mentioned skywatchers are at least well paid.
Mr. Maussan has earned enough to pay them generously, I hope. His attitude has made him a magnet for hoaxers. No success in the US – so what?! Just cross the border and you’ll be welcomed. You can’t have forgotten Dr. Reed, did you?


Do you really think that I am expecting to get the raw footage? I can’t remember having asked you for anything in this thread. I only reminded others not to hope for any release. After all I have learned my lesson from the Kumburgaz case.
I honestly don’t even need it and I am sure that you won’t hand it to any serious researcher who might dare to analyse it.




As I see you are still insisting in your absurd speculation about this incident never happened despite the evidences presented BUT and this is important for everybody to notice, you now changed your strategy in a usless effort to survive in your act that ended when the second witness came forward with evidence.


I haven’t changed any strategy since I had no strategy at all. Wake up free_spirit, you don’t seem to understand that a second video hasn’t changed anything. It still can be (and in my humble opinion is) CGI. No matter if you like it or not.



posted on Sep, 3 2009 @ 04:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by Arbitrageur
reply to post by necati
 
Excellent post Necati!

I agree we need extraordinary evidence for extraordinary claims, but as you also point out we don't even have basic evidence in this case like uncompressed versions of the videos.

Without such evidence I don't see how we are going to be able to prove whether it's CG, an elaborate kite, or alien orbs with confused pilots darting around in apparently random directions.


Well okay Arbitrageur,
my point is that you don’t need to have the raw footage to prove this one to be an elaborate hoax. Forget the release of the raw material for analysis. It won’t happen.
If it looks like a bird (even if it’s a blurry one which is almost f***** up beyond recognition to hide its true nature) and shows typical birdlike behaviour it is a bird.
Imagine watching footage of a man running, no matter how many blurry,blocky compression artefacts you have you would immediately recognise the motion pattern.
Again *pattern* is the key to understand why I don’t consider myself having jumped the gun with my PARTICULAR explanation. You don’t even need to have a better quality to match the particle ejecting pattern and behaviour with the video.
I hope that I’ll be able to present some further results as soon as I find the time to. If I’m not wrong the crappy YouTube stuff is sufficient to show that the spheres around the ‘tumbling plastic bag’ are keyframed. Will have to take a deeper look at it, yet.
Salut



posted on Sep, 3 2009 @ 07:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by ArMaP

Originally posted by free_spirit
I have a copy of the original raw footages from both witnesses. There's nothing to hide
and both footages are real meaning not tampered or CGI or anything like. Both videos
show exactly what was in the sky wich remains unexplained.
Do the original raw
footage of the second video also stops and changes to a different scene when the
camera is following the "spheres" towards the ground? Or does it show something
more?


If you insist this case is false then it's you against those 514 ATS members who
flagged and applauded this case plus many other thousands who applauded the
footages in luckymauro's YouTube channel, do you really think you have a chance?
Considering that many people flag the threads just to make them easier to find,
I don't think that would be a great measure of the quality or importance of any data
presented on ATS. I know that I don't give them the slightest importance, neither to
stars, that most people give away when they like the subject or the poster instead of
when they like the content (that was the original idea).

And truth is not a popularity contest.


As I said before in case you didn't notice, those cuts/edits were done by the tv
production, keep that in mind. Regarding what you say about the 514 ATS members
who flagged this case you are wrong again. Everything in the UFO Phenomena is about
statistics, consensus, don't try to define what those 514 ATS members said or did here
in this thread, don't try to minimize, ignore, discard or make fun of those ATS members
because that may place you as an arrogant person claiming to know everything
about other people's beliefs and behaviors by defining their opinions, that would be a
serious mistake, think about this. Every ATS member has the right to flag, put a star
and applaud what he considers it's a relevant and convincing case, that's what the flag
function is for, don't try to dismiss the legitimate voice of each member who wants to
flag a thread, a case, a video just because you are not convinced. Those flags are
historical statistics that live and most important you forgot to mention also the
comments of those 514 members that flagged this case, Are you going to dismiss also
their opinions? You see what I mean, this fact is undeniable consensus that prove the
hierarchy of this case, like it or not.

Now, you said this: “And truth is not a popularity contest”. May I ask you what is the
truth regarding the UFO Phenomena? What is according to you the undeniable,
irrefutable, undisputed and absolute truth? And who has the truth in his hands? The UFO
witnesses, the abductees, the contactees or on the other hand the skeptics, the
debunkers, the cover-up agents? Hard to tell or should I say almost impossible right?
Who is the owner of the universal knlowledge to decide what is the truth and what is not
regarding the UFO Phenomena. Because that would mean the puzzle is solved and it is
certainly not after 60 years of continuous debates. Therefore the truth is still ambiguous
regarding the UFO Phenomena but UFOs are certainly a popular subject for the people
or should I say an extremely popular subject and the proof of that is that you and me
as well as many others are here talking about this almost every day as well as
thousands on other websites and forums. That is certainly a truth that shall be
considered a fact. Not a contest but a consensus.

This is about an extraordinary event that took place and we have been discussing for
many days about this and the images and the testimonials and the facts and the
evidences presented, not an illusion. Those flags, stars and comments are real and
we are still talking about this.



posted on Sep, 3 2009 @ 07:54 PM
link   

Originally posted by necati
reply to post by free_spirit
 


I honestly wasn’t aware of the fact that I was diverting any kind of attention. I thought
that my conclusions openly implied that Pedro Hernandez and Alfred Carrillo are
hoaxers.



Then I shall remind you your own words.

necati on 5-7-2009

Some astonishing footage. Hope this will not turn out to be some sophisticated particle
rendering engine of one of those major 3d_appz like 3dsMax or Maya. If not it's really
mind boggling!

Reference Page 1.



Mind boggling you said? It certainly is. Now to the subject. You are declaring here that
both UFO witnesses Pedro Hernandez and Alfred Carrillo are hoaxers? Fine but now
prove it!! Prove it here with hard evidence they are hoaxers because if you don't it
will be clear it's you the one making a hoax by inventing false claims and a false
scenario. Prove this incident never happened or confess you are creating a hoax.
Because now I'm the one accusing you of false claims, prove I'm wrong.



posted on Sep, 3 2009 @ 08:19 PM
link   
Free spirit,
ArMaP asked:


Originally posted by ArMaP
Do the original raw footage of the second video also stops and changes to a different scene when the camera is following the "spheres" towards the ground? Or does it show something more?


to which you replied:


Originally posted by free_spirit
As I said before in case you didn't notice, those cuts/edits were done by the tv production, keep that in mind.


OK so the cuts were made by the TV station. The question was if the original footage shows more. Should I infer from your answer that the original footage made by Alfred Carillo does show more and some of what he taped was cut out by the TV people?

If true that's certainly no crime, however if the parts they cut out provided evidence of the true nature of the object, and they were cut for that reason, that could be considered unethical, but coming from Maussan that wouldn't be shocking.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not accusing either of the photographers of any deception.



posted on Sep, 4 2009 @ 12:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by free_spirit

Originally posted by necati
reply to post by free_spirit
 


I honestly wasn’t aware of the fact that I was diverting any kind of attention. I thought
that my conclusions openly implied that Pedro Hernandez and Alfred Carrillo are
hoaxers.



Then I shall remind you your own words.

necati on 5-7-2009

Some astonishing footage. Hope this will not turn out to be some sophisticated particle
rendering engine of one of those major 3d_appz like 3dsMax or Maya. If not it's really
mind boggling!

Reference Page 1.



Mind boggling you said? It certainly is. Now to the subject. You are declaring here that
both UFO witnesses Pedro Hernandez and Alfred Carrillo are hoaxers? Fine but now
prove it!! Prove it here with hard evidence they are hoaxers because if you don't it
will be clear it's you the one making a hoax by inventing false claims and a false
scenario. Prove this incident never happened or confess you are creating a hoax.
Because now I'm the one accusing you of false claims, prove I'm wrong.



You should quote properly. I’ve written:”If not it's really mind boggling!” but in my humble opinion it is!

Confess? Confess what? Are you joking? What’s wrong with you? So aggressive and attacking all the time. You should really calm down, else you might have some considerable problems with your health.

Besides, who do you think you are to tell me what I may or may not write in this forum? Have I missed something? If you can’t handle opposing views you better should stop reading them.

You’re a funny man; it’s up to you to prove me wrong if you want to accuse me. It would be quite humorous if I did it myself.


[edit on 4-9-2009 by necati]



posted on Sep, 4 2009 @ 12:53 PM
link   

Originally posted by Arbitrageur
Free spirit,
ArMaP asked:

OK so the cuts were made by the TV station. The question was if the original footage
shows more. Should I infer from your answer that the original footage made by
Alfred Carillo does show more and some of what he taped was cut out by the TV
people?



There is nothing in the footage that has not been released already I mean nothing
more important or relevant as you are wondering, all the features are there. But if
you may remember the same issue was discussed with the first video and many
members asked why the cuts, why the edits, were they done by the witness
intentionally, and this created confusion and doubts and some said this was
suspicious.

Then I explained all the edits and cuts were made by the tv production for the show
except one cut when the UFOs dissapeared and Pedro recorded himself, I explained
this is how television bussines work, minutes are the escence and for a limited
minute report the edition must be dynamic. Bcause I have the raw footage I know
and the original has only one cut when the UFOs dissapeared and Pedro decided to
film himself, I also know about television production.

Once the explanation was posted everybody understood the issue and it was cleared,
in fact new members joining the thread whitout knowing this asked the same thing
and other members explained those edits and cuts were made by the network, it's
all here in this thread. Now the same thing happened with the second video and
because some comparisons were made and due to the television broadcast time
of course they couldn't present the complete footage and selected the important
parts wich they considerent relevant, this is television and that's the way they work
so please dont try to find ghosts in the scenario to blame, I asure you the important
images are all there.

I have spent some hours studying both footages, I made some analysis in a videolab
with an AVID equipment and some state of the art pheriperials, I know both videos
are authentic without any digital manipulation and both videos coincide with the
testimonials of both witnesses, they were in two different locations and the sun
was as reported by them. Their versions match with the footages and this has been
established. But I still don't know what they caught on tape that day, I still can't
explain the nature of the phenomena in the sky recorded by their camera, an
extremely rare phenomena that may have several interpretations, the incident
is still a mystery.



[edit on 4-9-2009 by free_spirit]



posted on Sep, 4 2009 @ 02:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by free_spirit
As I said before in case you didn't notice, those cuts/edits were done by the tv production, keep that in mind.
I have only seen that for the first video (and I explained it to several people in this thread), that's why I asked it.


Regarding what you say about the 514 ATS members who flagged this case you are wrong again. Everything in the UFO Phenomena is about statistics, consensus, don't try to define what those 514 ATS members said or did here in this thread, don't try to minimize, ignore, discard or make fun of those ATS members because that may place you as an arrogant person claiming to know everything about other people's beliefs and behaviors by defining their opinions, that would be a serious mistake, think about this.
Please, stop twisting what I write to try to give it a meaning that is not there.

I wasn't defining what other members said on this thread, what I said is based on what (some) people that did just that (they flagged threads just to keep them visible on the "flagged threads" list, some do not event look at the thread again) said. Obviously, I don't know why the people that flagged this thread did it, but I cannot consider that something that is considered popular by some people can automatically be considered important.

Me, for example, I flag threads I think are important, and that is why I haven't flagged this thread yet, I haven't reached a conclusion. That may also subvert the intended use of the flags (specially for the "flagged threads" list, that I think only shows the most flagged threads in a short time-frame, so "late flaggers" may be redundant for that list), but that is the way I use that feature. Other people may use it in a different way, that I cannot know what is, that is why I disregard flags and stars, what's important is the post's content, not what people think about them.

And I never minimize, ignore, discard or make fun of anyone's work, much less their words, either on ATS or in real life, that's not my way of dealing with other people, even those that have opinions contrary to my own.


Every ATS member has the right to flag, put a star and applaud what he considers it's a relevant and convincing case, that's what the flag function is for, don't try to dismiss the legitimate voice of each member who wants to flag a thread, a case, a video just because you are not convinced.
Sure, every member has that right, but now you are the one saying why people do it, and you cannot be sure of that.

And as I said before, I do not dismiss what members explicitly say, I dismiss popularity measurement systems that can be used in any way and for which we do not have any way of knowing the real intention of those that used those systems. And it's not because I am not convinced, if I dismiss the flags and stars as just a popularity measurement I obviously do it for all threads, and if you are implying that I do it just to some threads then you are the one trying to define my way of thinking.



Those flags are historical statistics that live and most important you forgot to mention also the comments of those 514 members that flagged this case, Are you going to dismiss also their opinions?
That's why I said that you should not try to change the meaning of what I wrote, I didn't said anything about the posts, only the flag and star system. I never dismiss anyone's opinions, even the most outlandish possible, they are their own opinions and a readable representation of that person's thinking.

And we cannot know if the 514 flags came from all the people that posted on this thread (although I doubt that there are 514 different posters on this thread), I think that there are people that flagged and didn't post, we have the word of some members that they flagged and they posted (and so I consider it as true) and I know that there is at least one member (me) that made posts on this thread and didn't flagged it.


You see what I mean, this fact is undeniable consensus that prove the hierarchy of this case, like it or not.
What do you mean by "hierarchy of this case"?


Now, you said this: “And truth is not a popularity contest”. May I ask you what is the truth regarding the UFO Phenomena?
I don't know what is the truth, if I did I would be explaining it to other people, instead of trying to understand what is happening. I don't think that anyone knows the whole truth about it either.


What is according to you the undeniable, irrefutable, undisputed and absolute truth?
I don't know, see above.


And who has the truth in his hands? The UFO witnesses, the abductees, the contactees or on the other hand the skeptics, the debunkers, the cover-up agents? Hard to tell or should I say almost impossible right?
Probably nobody, see above.


Who is the owner of the universal knlowledge to decide what is the truth and what is not regarding the UFO Phenomena. Because that would mean the puzzle is solved and it is certainly not after 60 years of continuous debates.
From what you wrote it looks like I said that I knew who knows the truth, and that's not the case.

I don't think that anyone can decide what is true and is not, in this or on any other subject, as I usually say, things are what they are, not what we want them to be.


Therefore the truth is still ambiguous regarding the UFO Phenomena but UFOs are certainly a popular subject for the people or should I say an extremely popular subject and the proof of that is that you and me as well as many others are here talking about this almost every day as well as thousands on other websites and forums. That is certainly a truth that shall be considered a fact. Not a contest but a consensus.
It's popular on ATS? Sure, that's true, but we already now that, why keep on counting the flags as if the more flags this thread gets the closer to the truth we get? Flags, stars, applauses, pats on the back, Oscars, Nobel prizes, neither of those are useful to get closer to the truth, they are all a way of measuring something, and as nobody can know the truth nobody can give a prize for truthfulness.

That is why I disregard popularity, it means nothing about the subject, only about those that like to follow the subject.


This is about an extraordinary event that took place and we have been discussing for many days about this and the images and the testimonials and the facts and the evidences presented, not an illusion. Those flags, stars and comments are real and we are still talking about this.
No, this is about something that apparently happened, and that has been part of the discussion also. If it really happened then we need to know exactly (or at least with some certainty) what it was, only then can we know if it was extraordinary or not.

PS: If everything in the UFO Phenomena is about statistics and consensus then that may explain why things are almost as they were 60 years ago, maybe if people were more interested in knowledge than in statistics and in facts instead of consensus things were different today.



posted on Sep, 4 2009 @ 06:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by ArMaP
If it really happened then we need to know exactly (or at least with some certainty) what it was, only then can we know if it was extraordinary or not.



Well I don't know about you ArMap but for me as well as the general consensus of the
people after certain time of evaluating the reactions it was..........A UFO sighting. Just
that as reported, simply a UFO sighting. Is it extraordinary? Check the reactions of the
people all over the Internet and you may see if this UFO sighting has been considered
extraordinary or not. The issues regarding if this reported UFO sighting was real or not,
if this was a phenomena or a natural meteorological event, if this was a man made
display for an exhibition or not, if this was a mundane event or not all these questions
as well as where do these things came from, what were the motives etc. should be
considered as part of the investigation wich at this point has not been conclusive yet.

But again this case is about a UFO sighting reported by two different witnesses with
video evidences, it's a UFO sighting as simple as that like many thousands around
the world also with witnesses with video and photo evidences, some more spectacular
that the others. It's the basic principle, it's just a UFO sighting.



posted on Sep, 4 2009 @ 06:59 PM
link   
reply to post by free_spirit
 

Yes, but to me, saying "this is an unknown event" is the same as not explaining it, and that's why I am interested in UFOs, I am trying to turn them in IFOs (Identified Flying Objects), that's the only way of learning something from this whole thing (apart from something about human behaviour and psychology
).



posted on Sep, 4 2009 @ 07:23 PM
link   
necati, I was going to say something about this in your other thread but...


Originally posted by necati
All the parameters for animating the spheres (particles) like gravity, air resistance, turbulence field, birth rate, lifespan etc can be found within the above mentioned program. The odds that this is a mere coincidence are astronomical.

Actually the odds of that are about one. Any decent particle system is going to have all of those parameters, and more. It's what a particle system IS. I don't know where you got this idea from but it's completely incorrect.

In your other thread you talked about particle systems having specific modes for various effects (such as fire, etc) - again, this is incorrect. Although there may well exist 'cheap' systems that have such things, any decent particle system does not need them, they are much more flexible. Again, this proves nothing.


Originally posted by necati
I am sure he used the Adobe After Effects plug-in PARTICULAR.

There are much easier ways to fake something like this than any after effects plug-in. So I very much doubt it.

In fact, if I was going to fake something like this, I would not use a particle system to do it. It'd be like hammering nails with a sponge. It does not look like a particle system. You may not be able to tell. I can.

Of course it could be CGI, and it could be a particle system - these days it's possible to create anything, and I'm quite surprised to see so many people responding to your other thread like they didn't realise this. They must have been hiding under a rock for 15 years or more.

But I'm seeing nothing that says it is. I haven't taken it apart to any huge degree because I don't want to waste my time - after 83 pages, I'm sure somebody already has, and seen nothing. But the point is, I don't think you've proven anything, and are on the wrong track.

In fact I would suspect, if it had been faked, that the second video would look a lot more like the first one.


Originally posted by necati
The yellow object shows everything you would expect to see when watching a bird in flight.

Except for the fact that it's stationary, only appears to flap for a few seconds, and looks completely different in the second video.


[edit on 4-9-2009 by Clickfoot]



posted on Sep, 5 2009 @ 06:54 AM
link   

Originally posted by free_spirit
Now to the subject. You are declaring here that
both UFO witnesses Pedro Hernandez and Alfred Carrillo are hoaxers? Fine but now
prove it!! Prove it here with hard evidence they are hoaxers because if you don't it
will be clear it's you the one making a hoax by inventing false claims and a false
scenario. Prove this incident never happened or confess you are creating a hoax.
Because now I'm the one accusing you of false claims, prove I'm wrong.


Cool.

The evidence please.

Ho hum...



posted on Sep, 5 2009 @ 10:00 AM
link   
Is the original film going to be given to an independent agency for study?

If you really want this apparent ground-breaking footage to make waves, that would be your best bet. Is there a reason it is not being studied by professionals? Or is it a $$$ thing?



posted on Sep, 5 2009 @ 10:10 AM
link   
this thread seems to have degenerated...maybe we should lock it until new information comes to light



posted on Sep, 5 2009 @ 01:12 PM
link   

Originally posted by reject
this thread seems to have degenerated...maybe we should lock it until new information comes to light


That is the second time you have requested this thread to be closed


Can you explain how it has 'degenerated' as there has been some great input in the past few days IMO?



posted on Sep, 5 2009 @ 03:26 PM
link   
reply to post by Clickfoot
 


Am I wrong or is this again one of those postings trying to arouse the impression that I don’t know what I’m talking of. Quote (Clickfoot): “You may not be able to tell. I can.”
There has even been one guy in the other thread who allegedly programmed plug-ins claiming that this could not be done using particle plug-ins.
I could again answer all the points in detail but decided to cut a long story short:
How then, do you think Josué Hernandez (the CGI artist/architect) has made his version?



Unfortunately I still haven’t received a reply from Josué Hernandez, therefore I can’t finally approve if he used a particle plug-in or not until he confirms it. However I’m 99.99% sure he did. I also wrote a U2U to Alejandro in order to ask him if he could contact him in Spanish. Still waiting for an answer!





In fact, if I was going to fake something like this, I would not use a particle system to do it. It'd be like hammering nails with a sponge.


Okay then, would you be so kind as to tell me how you would have done that using a 3d program? Would you create each single sphere separately and animate it with (again animated) paths? What a tedious way if you have a particle plug-in at hand which firstly gives you all the tools for creation and animation and secondly provides everything needed to combine it with any given footage?




There are much easier ways to fake something like this than any after effects plug-in. So I very much doubt it.


Would you mind to let me know what those easier ways are?

Don’t get me wrong but you don’t seem to be the keen observer you claim to be. Else you would have noticed that the centre object from which I claim that it is simply a bird can be seen until it ‘morphs’ into that tumbling plastic-bag like thing which is then surrounded by its ‘babies’; not only for a few seconds as you say - In both videos btw.




In your other thread you talked about particle systems having specific modes for various effects (such as fire, etc) - again, this is incorrect. Although there may well exist 'cheap' systems that have such things, any decent particle system does not need them, they are much more flexible. Again, this proves nothing.


That I have never said. You surely mean presets not modes. Perhaps you are confusing it with layer-blending modes. The various effects can be yield by using different particle types like spheres, cloudlets, smokelets etc.
The built-in effects like CC Particle Systems II and CC Particle World compared to Particular for example don’t have either all the mentioned parameters or all the particle types and do not provide all the physics parameters needed.




In fact I would suspect, if it had been faked, that the second video would look a lot more like the first one.


Would you please explain that in detail? They were clever enough to choose exactly the opposite direction of the first version. Two witnesses out of several millions of inhabitants of Mexico City, by chance equipped with video cameras (one for his first shot ever - the other one with some earlier cameo appearances in the Maussan show) almost exactly from the opposite directions. Wow!!!
What I mean is, it makes a lot of things much easier. How convenient. You already have the setup for the first version? Okay, change the background, flip it horizontally and change the blending mode of the particle layer to look dark like a silhouette - Here you go!


[edit on 5-9-2009 by necati]



posted on Sep, 5 2009 @ 03:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by fleabit
Is the original film going to be given to an independent agency for study?

If you really want this apparent ground-breaking footage to make waves, that would be your best bet. Is there a reason it is not being studied by professionals? Or is it a $$$ thing?


How could it then remain: "a splendid mystery"???

Two quotes from free_spirit:



...If this footage remains a UFO video that will be splendid don't you agree?





What I see in this footage after some hours of study is a rare phenomena in the sky that I have not seen before in my research. I don't know what it is, what it means therefore it's an unidentified phenomena aka unknown objects. This video may very well be considered soon as a classic in Ufology, a new evidence of an unexplained phenomena in the sky. That will be splendid.


[edit on 5-9-2009 by necati]



posted on Sep, 5 2009 @ 04:35 PM
link   
reply to post by necati
 


Unfortunately I still haven’t received a reply from Josué Hernandez, therefore I can’t finally approve if he used a particle plug-in or not until he confirms it. However I’m 99.99% sure he did. I also wrote a U2U to Alejandro in order to ask him if he could contact him in Spanish. Still waiting for an answer!

I am sorry to answer you this way necati, I am not familiar with ATS posting. This is my first time I get into my U2U mail box, I've been in ATS since 2005 but as you know I can't answer any of your kind posts because I have to reach 20 posts on ATS, I am so sorry for that. I wrote also to Josué's personal e-mail since august 22 and have had no answer from him. I'll keep trying.

I am also convinced that the video is 100% a CGI. I am about to post here the new discoveries I've found in Alfredo's video. Simple things forgotten by hoaxers sometimes mean important clues enough to catch 'em. I know they are ready to have an answer but the details I've found are with no doubt a clear sign of how this case was an elaborated hoax.



posted on Sep, 5 2009 @ 07:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by necati

Unfortunately I still haven’t received a reply from Josué Hernandez, therefore I can’t
finally approve if he used a particle plug-in or not until he confirms it.

[edit on 5-9-2009 by necati]


Maybe Josué has ignored your messages because you don't have credentials, simple.
But just be patient, I've been informed that Josué Hernandez is gonna be invited to the
tv show to talk about his recreation and the Pedro Hernandez UFO footage, in fact the
intention is to present the two of them talking about this sighting and wait, it will
surprise you. Stay tuned.

By the way I see you quoted me with I think my first post in this historic thread.
Learning something from me perhaps? A word of advice for free; Beware with the CGI
syndrome, you may end believing your own shadow is a CGI illusion, or your own
reflection in a mirror. Just remember CGI? No way. But if you insist then PROVE IT !!



new topics

top topics



 
656
<< 80  81  82    84  85  86 >>

log in

join