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.

 

Conspiracy theory with Jesse Ventura manipulating video footage?

page: 2
9
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 22 2010 @ 05:32 AM
link   
Interesting that Chadwickus accuses Jesse Ventura of manipulating video footage when it was CLEARLY explained in the segment that mysterious camera problems/interference that the crew experienced was suspected coming from the HAARP facility: (8:38 in)



What else has Chadwickus lied about or manipulated? Doesn't knowingly lying violate ATS terms and conditions?


1). Posting: You will not post any material that is knowingly false, misleading, or inaccurate.





[edit on 1/22/2010 by GoldenFleece]




posted on Jan, 22 2010 @ 08:26 AM
link   
reply to post by GoldenFleece
 


I'm glad you've decided to post in the appropriate thread.

Now honestly I still don't see how I'm lying, let's see if I can break this down (again)

Firstly, I've titled the thread with a question mark, this as we know means I am asking a question, not making a statement or accusation.

Now it is clear that there is some sort of post production manipulation.

Have a look at the sequence of screenshots again.

1. No red car, no interference
2. Red car present, interference begins
3. Red car gone, interference continues
4. Red car returns but further away and interference continues

So all I'm doing is asking the question why they felt the need to add in this supposed interference after the fact?




Interesting that Chadwickus accuses Jesse Ventura of manipulating video footage when it was CLEARLY explained in the segment that mysterious camera problems/interference that the crew experienced was suspected coming from the HAARP facility


If you had read the other replies a couple of the other members pointed out that the interference was not clearly explained. It is only implied and this is where I concede that I may have been reading too much into it.

So now that I've explained again, how am I knowingly lying when I am asking a question?

I think you've let your dislike for me cloud your judgment.

If what I say really bothers you, just put me on ignore, please.



posted on Jan, 22 2010 @ 09:22 AM
link   
Excellent posting. I don't watch TV and as such seeing these Jesse Ventura HAARP segments have been on my mind with all the comments I see through out ATS. I am glad I got to see a little of what Jesse Ventura has been doing.

Now the fact that there appears to be some interference does not surprise me. I would think that any really secret facility which is acting like it's just some unclassified unimportant location would have in is arsenal the ability to disrupt the magnetic recording processes of electronic equipment. In fact I would believe that HAARP would be able to even detect the exact magnetic frequency involved in digital and or magnetic recording in order to disrupt it.

This type of harassment is so juvenile but it also shows that there is a grasp of wave amplitude frequencies which can be countered to prevent anyone from using a recording device. This security feature is probable built in to the security system to prevent anyone from sneaking in and recording what they snuck in to see.

The live and uncut issue is matter of definition. Sort of like when Clinton said oral sex is not really sex.



posted on Jan, 22 2010 @ 09:32 AM
link   

Originally posted by Chadwickus
1. No red car, no interference
2. Red car present, interference begins
3. Red car gone, interference continues
4. Red car returns but further away and interference continues


So the red car was the cause of the interference... or they added it later!



posted on Jan, 22 2010 @ 09:48 AM
link   

Originally posted by Chadwickus
reply to post by redmage
 


Go have a look at the sequence of screenshots again.

1. No red car, no interference
2. Red car present, interference begins
3. Red car gone, interference continues
4. Red car returns but further away and interference continues

It's not a strawman argument, I am asking the question why they felt the need to add in this supposed interference after the fact?

And also asking what else has been manipulated?

Chadwickus, have you ever been interviewed for television? the way that it is done is that they film heaps of footage and then cut away what they don't need. In many cases the cameraman asks the interviewee questions and then later on in the day films the interviewer asking the questions.

In this case they may have been standing there for an hour while lawyers for both sides interupted and said : No, you can't ask that...No, you can't answer that, etc. in the meantime the red car pulls up and their continuity department either said "Meh" or were incompetent. Or maybe they don't HAVE a continuity department.

there is no wrong doing here. This is simply the way TV is made.

tamale







posted on Jan, 22 2010 @ 09:59 AM
link   
reply to post by dereks
 


Well no, the red car appears, disappears then reappears again all during the supposed interference.

If it were a movie, it wouldn't matter so much because movies are often filmed out of sequence and in many takes. But since this is a documentary the scene at the gate would be filmed in sequence with one take, obviously with the boring bits cut out.

What the interference segment is showing is that parts of it were filmed earlier, when there was no signs of interference and before the red car shows up and other parts whilst the red car was there.

So because they've spliced in earlier footage with the other footage showing identical interference, this made me question if it was added after the fact for added malice.

I hope that clears it up.





[edit on 22/1/10 by Chadwickus]



posted on Jan, 22 2010 @ 10:14 AM
link   
* and F my friend. Great catch.

People need to remember that is nothing but a studio production. Think of it as Ghosthunters - ATS-style



posted on Jan, 23 2010 @ 07:27 AM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 



posted on Jan, 23 2010 @ 07:45 AM
link   
This show is really shocking, it's embarassing. I myself noticed them manipulating footage during the NWO/Bilderberg episode. They cut to footage of a car chase shot over TEN years ago for a UK show (doccumentary featuring Alex Jones) but implied it was happening *now*.
It's shows like this which make us all look like loons



posted on Jan, 23 2010 @ 08:29 AM
link   
Sigh.

Seems we are splitting hairs here.

The only thing the show is guilty of is leaving you folks left to assume. Assumptions are inherently disingenuous and nothing is really gained from it. Anyone with half a mind watched that show and took away the "interference" & other aspects with a grain of salt.

They never really "implied" anything at all.

I've been interviewed for TV before. I talked for about 15 minutes but they snipped about 14:53 of everything and aired a :07 snippet of what I said. Wasn't lying, they just edited it.

What I think happened with this "interference" thing, is that somewhere along the line of the investigation outside the gates at the HAARP facility, they received some sort of anomalies/interference, but it didn't happen during the main segment of the conversations. So either way, they would have had to edit *something* to cut it in. They probably cut the genuine piece and added in the effects later on. Who knows. Take it with a grain of salt, no accusations were ever made.



posted on Jan, 23 2010 @ 09:45 AM
link   
This Thread is NOT about any Member here at ATS

Let's remember that

Thank you

Semper



posted on Jan, 23 2010 @ 10:48 AM
link   
Not sure but i dont think they did that to cover anything up or to lies about it. Its a Tv Show of course its edited.



posted on Jan, 23 2010 @ 03:08 PM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 



posted on Jan, 23 2010 @ 07:31 PM
link   
reply to post by GoldenFleece
 


So how come, during this problem is there footage spliced in from earlier on?

When there was clearly no camera problems.

That's not me lying, that's me spotting either poor editing on their part which could be placed under the goofs section at IMDB
OR it proves that the show was trying to make out that the people at HAARP are capable of directing some sort of device that interferes with cameras but not microphones, if you notice when they guy says "hold on guys, we've got a problem here" it's perfectly clear. If this is the case then the producers are the ones who are lying, I'm merely presenting my case and asking the question.

To call me a liar for doing that is ridiculous and moronic.



posted on Jan, 23 2010 @ 07:55 PM
link   
[edit on 23-1-2010 by Donny 4 million]



posted on Jan, 23 2010 @ 08:13 PM
link   
reply to post by Chadwickus
 


The red car could have been a worker at the HAARP facility with bad spark plug wires. The secnd red car was the same popular Alaskan model.
More likely the first red car backed up to realign her security pass so the gate would open.
(almost ran Jerry over. making his arms unfold)
Did the driver have horns and a wart on her nose?



posted on Jan, 23 2010 @ 08:56 PM
link   
reply to post by Chadwickus
 


Sounds to me like Jesse needs to do a show on his own show, doesn't it?



posted on Jan, 23 2010 @ 09:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by GoldenFleece

If the OP makes demonstrably false statements that attempt to discredit others, why shouldn't their own credibility be questioned?
Care to point out where you demonstrate that Chad is lying intentionally in an effort to discredit Jesse.


In this instance, the cameraman is on tape saying, "hold on guys, we've got a problem here", so the OP's entire premise is false and misleading.
All I see is an instance where you accept everything you see in a video. Chad is questioning that, what we see, is not a true representation of events.
You assume that there was a real problem of interference.
How do you know the cameraman was not intentionally scripted to mention the "interference"? You don't.

Chad points out a break down in the consistency of the imagery that does not match the time line in the video particularly surrounding the "interference" section which leads one to ask, was there an effort to create and present the circumstances.
Chad demonstrates his point.
You do not.

The only one I can see intentionally trying to discredit someone, is You.


If the very first ATS term and condition is "1). Posting: You will not post any material that is knowingly false, misleading, or inaccurate", why is it never enforced?
Why enforce a condition that has not been breeched?
The point you have to prove is if Chad knows what he posted is false. misleading and inaccurate? Chad offers his points as debate, questions and curiosity that he noted after watching the video.
If you had comprehended the OP, you surely would have seen these two questions at the end of the OP.

So what's the deal? Is this show just creating lies to get ratings?

What else have they lied about or manipulated?

Chad notices certain characteristics about the show which inspire questions. Chad asks questions. That is all.

I find your rational and explanation concerning a request to enforce T&C on a member to be knowingly false, misleading and inaccurate. You know what the OP entails, which are questions relating to information and not a presentation of representation of information. You replied to it, so you must be aware of this.
And you are aware of the T&C.
Yet you have endeavored to knowingly present false, misleading and inaccurate accusations.


Do you guys care more about truth or avoiding confrontation? When people knowingly lie and misrepresent, they should be called on it.

The questions is: Do you care more about the truth or creating confrontation?

Read the OP again.
All Chad knowingly states are questions.

I think the best way to answer Chads questions though, is to watch the entire serious and see if Jesse and Co. have a habit of "Artistic License" and "dramatization" in the application of their "Investigations".




[edit on 23/1/10 by atlasastro]



posted on Jan, 23 2010 @ 10:13 PM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 



posted on Jan, 23 2010 @ 10:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by Seiko
I watched it, the car is at the turn much earlier then disappears, then reappears as the camera goes haywire. This appears to be edit tampering.

Good catch chad.


I've always kind of wondered about this show.I've only seen a few episodes..Thing is they have to do something interesting to make it worth watching.They probably didn't think you would catch that and they would get away with it.



new topics

top topics



 
9
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join