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.

 

Original 'Solar Obliteration' episode found..

page: 7
20
<< 4  5  6    8 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 7 2010 @ 03:26 PM
link   
reply to post by Johnbro
 


Johnbro.....

I am still interested in your answers to my questions.

I feel this might help the members of ATS to understand your approach to all of this.

Questions as previously posted for Johnbro (thanks in advance!)

Kind regards
Maybe...maybe not




posted on Sep, 7 2010 @ 03:55 PM
link   
Understandably, 'Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.'

But now some 60 years after the subject of 'UFO's' rose to up to the level of public consciousness - I am convinced that there is absolutely nothing that anyone could present that would resonably suffice as being 'proof.'

Yet, it becomes more implausible; 'possibly impossible' - to 'prove' that something doesn't exist. Oh, we can make comparisons and provide examples; still, 'reality' and 'the truth' ultimately 'is in the eye of the beholder.'

Looking around the threads here at ATS - I would postulate that - beyond the 90 percentile range of members here; are completely unmovable - in any direction. However, this mindset makes them quite vulnerable, as well.

'If it sounds weird to you; you automatically label it as being wrong.'

Seems the true 'scientific criteria' prevailing here - amounts to nothing more than whether or not a proposed topic / subject sounds 'resonable' to the 'status quo' - or the individual's personal paradigms.

Personally, I do not believe in 'Occam's Razor' - as an 'end-all, be all.'

Quoting the 'Skeptic's field Guide':

"To begin with we used Occam's razor to separate theories which would predict the same result for all experiments. Now we are trying to choose between theories which make different predictions. This is not what Occam intended…"

“When there are two competing explanations for an event, the simpler one is more likely.”

"This argument is a principle that skeptics often misuse to try to force alternate explanations to paranormal ones, even if those explanations involve false accusations or do not fit the facts. Originally, it began as a principle in physics having to do with parsimony, but somehow got twisted into a mantra for invalidating paranormal claims... "

These are not my words - they are the collective 'yours.'



posted on Sep, 7 2010 @ 04:17 PM
link   

Originally posted by Johnbro
“When there are two competing explanations for an event, the simpler one is more likely.”

I agree with that sentence, but probably not in the same way other people see it.

I agree because there's no waste in nature, so I think the simpler explanation, from nature's point of view, is the most likely, we just have to understand the circumstances and the factors involved.



posted on Sep, 7 2010 @ 04:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by Johnbro
Understandably, 'Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.'


And yet you have been asked for no such thing.

First you refuse to address the ordinary explanations for most the imagery you have - Your site is littered with images of 'Rods' which have been absolutely and comprehensively proven to be winged insects or birds caught on video frames. The whole 'Rod' thing is a hoax. That's HOAX. But to you, it is *obviously* .. a spaceship.
(That drawing, by the way, is one of the funniest things I have EVER seen - thanks for the giggle.)

And what is left? Other things that would be easily explained or proven (either way) by using a VERY simple technique that involves little more than borrowing another camera.

You absolutely REFUSE to acknowledge that. Instead you claim that we are requiring application of military technology and ridiculous complexity, despite the process being explained to you in words that even a complete novice could understand.

And then you post post reams of irrelevant philosophical ramblings, as if Occam somehow backs you up. The choice of Occam is rather ironic...


And I'm afraid I strongly disagree with the claim that "'the truth' ultimately 'is in the eye of the beholder.'" The truth is.. the truth. In this case, the 'believing beholders' are being presented with a lie, and sucked in by your misinformation.

Hoax.



posted on Sep, 7 2010 @ 05:30 PM
link   
reply to post by CHRLZ
 


Oh for the love of Ra man - give it up .

you've made your point - several times - you are repeating the same crap over and over - WE GET IT ALREADY. Move on.

The OP has shown us all a very interesting topic - and you don't believe it. Are you happy now? Can you understand that people don't have to bow down and agree to your opinion?

What is this, Nazi Germany all of a sudden? Man you're one angry guy.

You do this in every thread too - why?



posted on Sep, 7 2010 @ 05:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by watchZEITGEISTnow
you've made your point

Which, obviously, is that it is a hoax.


WE GET IT ALREADY.

Good. That's two votes for Hoax.


What is this, Nazi Germany all of a sudden?

And I'm ranting and angry...


Man you're one funny guy, as they say.


WZN, could you do me a small favour? I'll ask nicely.

Could you please point out any useful information, technical appraisal, image analysis or credible links or references that you have posted on this topic?

Thanks so much.



posted on Sep, 7 2010 @ 05:55 PM
link   
reply to post by CHRLZ
 


shhhhhhh

Just calm down - you're so angry!

breathe - you're gonna have an aneurysm.




posted on Sep, 7 2010 @ 05:57 PM
link   
I was having fun with the 'Smart Dust' - you guys might be too easily baited. : )

Personally, I don't know about the 'Greers, Hoaglands, etc. - of the world. John Leer's statements seem fringe - but if I don't like something... I don't bash them. I just go onto the next. No one here is actually qualified to make the final judgement.

I do have tremendous respect for Buzz Aldrin, and Dr. Mitchell. So, 'Flame on, Jose.'


I learned a long time ago - No one knows it all. And some of the strangest things you've ever heard : can potentially be true.

On-line; or physically standing in a room with ya - I back my play... and by all means necessary. You might have noticed... I am still here.



posted on Sep, 7 2010 @ 05:58 PM
link   
You missed the question, obviously.

Could you please point out any useful information, technical appraisal, image analysis or credible links or references that you have posted on this topic?



posted on Sep, 7 2010 @ 06:01 PM
link   
reply to post by Johnbro
 


Yes the "dust busters" frequent my threads - as well as many others too...

They really seem to have the dust theory down pat. I'm gathering their houses are very clean and dust free!

Seriously funny - I mean if it aint dust, pollen or bugs - (or rocks and shadows) - it just can't be anything else!




posted on Sep, 7 2010 @ 06:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by CHRLZ
You missed the question, obviously.

Could you please point out any useful information, technical appraisal, image analysis or credible links or references that you have posted on this topic?



That's the other thing about you CHRLZ - you "assume" to much dude!'

I don't really have to answer your questions (or show you my papers...) , but to avoid you being taken to hospital with a heart attack...

lets break it down CHRLZ style:

*Useful information = more examples shown.

*Technical Appraisal= I praise JohnBro's technical (yet simple for everyone like you and me to try for ourselves) method! (and no charge = bonus points!)

*Image analysis= well I know what I can see with my own eyes


*Credible Links= www.abovetopsecret.com (hehe)




posted on Sep, 7 2010 @ 06:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by Johnbro
Personally, I don't know about the 'Greers, Hoaglands, etc. - of the world. John Leer's statements seem fringe - but if I don't like something... I don't bash them. I just go onto the next. No one here is actually qualified to make the final judgement.

Judging by the way you reacted to my name, it looks like you don't apply that way of thinking to all situations.



posted on Sep, 7 2010 @ 06:58 PM
link   

Originally posted by Johnbro
I back my play... and by all means necessary. You might have noticed... I am still here.


I think readers like me would be more interested in your detailed answers to questions posed than as mentioned earlier your tendency towards "obfuscation".

The truth about Village Labs has been known for some time now. Glad to see somebody else posted a link to the truth about that little apparent confidence game.

Quote from your post -


Repeated professional video analysis of 'The Reseda Saucer' - ( July 14, 1995 ) - indicated to 'Village Labs' computer scientists that: The object was 'a solid, structured object in the sky - approximately 3 miles from the camera - and moving at a very rate high speed.' These are not my words; but their's.


I'm curious, were you hoaxed by Village Labs or a willing dupe?

Spectral analysis from a video image


The methods others have asked you to employ to test your method sound simple enough to accomplish and it seems you would want to try them to test for yourself, since you place your own reputation firmly upon such a questionable method?

You should also point out in the one video which shows the bright white lines that remain static, that they are lens artifacts caused by light bleeding from a bright light source striking the edge of the lens. You have figured that one out I hope. Simple minded folks like myself call them flares.

The other items floating around are pretty self explanatory since you are simply back lighting the usual stuff floating around in the air. A common technique I doubt you invented. That is quite frankly all your method is and to claim it for yourself, being you are in the film industry and likely know people who use it all the time, is pretty disingenuous is it not? Any photographer who has attempted to catch godrays in an image or the ethereal effect such back lighting has in dusty environments, knows what you are photographing.

I AM a UFO believer, who also believes this nonsense is destroying a field that deserves better than this tripe.



posted on Sep, 7 2010 @ 07:17 PM
link   
reply to post by ArMaP
 


ArMaP,
If you really want a more scientific explanation of "densities", try David Wilcock's site, DivineCosmos. He has assembled a huge amount of information that is very well put together.



posted on Sep, 8 2010 @ 01:16 AM
link   

Originally posted by Blaine91555
I think readers like me would be more interested in your detailed answers to questions posed...

The truth about Village Labs has been known for some time now... I'm curious, were you hoaxed by Village Labs or a willing dupe?

Spectral analysis from a video image... [
]

The methods others have asked you to employ to test your method sound simple enough to accomplish...

..in the one video which shows the bright white lines that remain static.. they are lens artifacts caused by light bleeding from a bright light source striking the edge of the lens. You have figured that one out I hope. Simple minded folks like myself call them flares.

The other items floating around are pretty self explanatory since you are simply back lighting the usual stuff floating around in the air. A common technique I doubt you invented. That is quite frankly all your method is and to claim it for yourself, being you are in the film industry and likely know people who use it all the time, is pretty disingenuous is it not?

Any photographer ... knows what you are photographing.

I AM a UFO believer, who also believes this nonsense is destroying a field that deserves better than this tripe.


Blaine91555, that was wonderfully put - I've highlighted some key comments, and especially like the last sentence... I'm the same. As a person with a rather wide level of experience (modesty permits!!) in meteorology, photography, videography, digital imaging and general sciences, I can spot the garbage within seconds. But that leaves a number of cases of genuine ufo reporting that are, imo, worthy of very serious consideration. This isn't one of those.

This RUBBISH is timewasting stupidity, but what is worse in my opinion is the folk who shout support to the hoaxers from the sidelines, yet offer absolutely nothing whatsoever in the way of expertise, and who completely ignore facts. These 'rentacrowd' folk give the appearance that the OP 'has something'...

The good stuff gets buried in all this ridiculous noise, and you have to wonder who the real disinformation agents are. I'd like to think they are just ill-informed, but some of the behavior is too disruptive - it is either trolling or deliberate disinformation, possibly (probably?) from folk who have a monetary interest in some way - classic examples being Jose Escamilla and Jaime Maussan's publicity agent Santiago Ytturia/Garza, who posts here under a pseudonym...


Anyway, keep avoiding and obfuscating, John Bro. Nobody is noticing.

Later I'll post a list of all the questions you have ignored...



posted on Sep, 8 2010 @ 01:26 AM
link   

Originally posted by dontaskme
reply to post by ArMaP
 


ArMaP,
If you really want a more scientific explanation of "densities", try David Wilcock's site, DivineCosmos. He has assembled a huge amount of information that is very well put together.


You're kidding, right?

If you were to take some cells from Steven Greer and Richard Hoagland, combine them and clone them the result would be David Wilcock!



posted on Sep, 8 2010 @ 02:52 AM
link   
reply to post by CHRLZ
 


CHRLZ…..


Anyway, keep avoiding and obfuscating, John Bro. Nobody is noticing.
Later I'll post a list of all the questions you have ignored...


Don’t forget my questions to johnbro!

Cheers mate
Maybe...maybe not



posted on Sep, 8 2010 @ 12:11 PM
link   
this is interesting, am gonan try this



posted on Sep, 8 2010 @ 02:14 PM
link   
reply to post by CHRLZ
 


I don't think we will ever get straight answers to hard questions.
____________________________

Johnbro,

I have no idea if your ignoring facts relevant to your idea's about the results of your back-lighting experiments. You do yourself no favors in doing so. People pointing out facts are not your enemy, they are your best friends. I like the old saying that a friend is a person who will tell you that you have a big green booger hanging out your nose.

If your truly into this subject, move on. Take down that tripe you have on the Internet and put up some good information to further this research instead.

You also need to recognize that many who believe in this topic are Skeptics for good reason. To get to the truth requires you be skeptical of even your own idea's. What matters in the end is the truth.



posted on Sep, 8 2010 @ 04:15 PM
link   
Hi JohnBro,

I just read your posts (and video including your technique) and you've got al my respect! That 'Solar Obliteration' method sounds really proving to me, and it's proven in that 'Sightings' show. No need for bashing you, you're doing a great thing giving this information to the public and your fellow ufologists (or wannabe, thinking about myself, haha).

That the production company said they didn't wanted to scare the public and thus leaving your best proof is very believeble. Hundrerds of company's think we aren't ready yet (War of the Worlds-radio show scenario's) and so does the government I bet... But why all governments? Is it a global rule?



new topics

top topics



 
20
<< 4  5  6    8 >>

log in

join