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.

 

Jonathan Reed affair on tom'w's Fact or Faked: Paranormal Files on Syfy

page: 2
2
<< 1    3  4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 15 2010 @ 12:04 PM
link   



My point is,

I am not standing up for Reed. I'm only posting because I thought the tactics used by the FoF show were BS. It does not matter if Reed is a hoaxer. Many poster feel the need to fall down on one side or the other. This thread is not about hoax or real or Reed himself. If FoF wants to prove Reed is a hoaxer I say more power to them but do it in a non biased factual way. Don't have a professional special effects guy with a Hollowood budget make an alien dummy that doesn't even look as organic as Reed's and then claim that proves it's a hoax. Lame, lame, Lame.


I think this show has to try to pass itself off as a legitimate investigative show. The producers know they cannot prove or disprove anything in cases such as these but to admit that means they really have no reason for a show. So what we get in the end is a hoax. This show is as guilty of hoaxing as much as the claim Reed is. They are trying to hoax us into believing they can proved anything when all they really have is tedious circumstantial evidence.


It seems like there was some sort of grudge behind the scenes. They were inordinately rough on Reed compared to other cases they've "debunked"... and with little more than a commercial grade voice stress analysis taken from a taped interview. Reproducibility of the video does not prove a hoax, and to accuse him of lying based on their cursory "investigation" seems a bit heavy handed. Hoaxer or not, this guy was baited.
edit on 15-11-2010 by draknoir2 because: (no reason given)

edit on 15-11-2010 by draknoir2 because: (no reason given)




posted on Nov, 15 2010 @ 01:06 PM
link   
reply to post by draknoir2
 


You said “Hoaxer or not this guy was baited”.
Wrong. Reed knew exactly what was going to happen, he was paid and he signed a contract
in agreement with the treatment he was going to receive, he didn't care as much as he receive
new publicity to his hoax. Since he has been out of the picture for sometime Reed made an
agreement with Robert Kiviat (The Alien Autopsy hoax) and received money for appearing
in the SYFY show. Therefore for those who feel sorry for him don't be naive, Reed didn't care
the ridicule or being debunked because at the end as he said “Any publicity is good Publicity”.



posted on Nov, 15 2010 @ 01:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by free_spirit

1) Reed knew exactly what was going to happen,
he was paid and he signed a contract
2) in agreement with the treatment he was going to receive,
3) he didn't care as much as he receive new publicity to his hoax.
4) Reed made an agreement with Robert Kiviat (The Alien Autopsy hoax) and received money for appearing
in the SYFY show.


You have made four very bold and possibly slanderous claims. What kind of evidence do you have to back all this up or is this simply the spouting off of an anonymous poster with no inside info at all?
edit on 15-11-2010 by Unknown Origin because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 15 2010 @ 01:17 PM
link   

Originally posted by free_spirit
reply to post by draknoir2
 


You said “Hoaxer or not this guy was baited”.
Wrong. Reed knew exactly what was going to happen, he was paid and he signed a contract
in agreement with the treatment he was going to receive, he didn't care as much as he receive
new publicity to his hoax. Since he has been out of the picture for sometime Reed made an
agreement with Robert Kiviat (The Alien Autopsy hoax) and received money for appearing
in the SYFY show. Therefore for those who feel sorry for him don't be naive, Reed didn't care
the ridicule or being debunked because at the end as he said “Any publicity is good Publicity”.



This is for sure? Where did you hear this?

I don't feel sorry for the guy... just seemed like baiting to me, and it fired my curiosity as to what was going on behind the scenes. Why pick him, and not the likes of Greer, or any number of the people they regularly use as expert sources on their UFO shows? I guess I just answered my own question...
edit on 15-11-2010 by draknoir2 because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 16 2010 @ 12:29 AM
link   
reply to post by Unknown Origin
 


They didn't intend to expose Reed as a hoaxer, rather to expose the video as a hoax. Ben says during the show "We are just going to focus on the actual video." Otherwise, the investigation would have been about him like the investigation UFO Watchdog did. They would have found out that he's a compulsive liar, that he's not a doctor, that he has never owned a dog, that he doesn't go hiking, that he had planned this hoax and had discussed it with others years before, and that there is evidence that he's never been "on the run" or in hiding.



posted on Nov, 16 2010 @ 05:37 AM
link   

Originally posted by MrAndy
reply to post by Unknown Origin
 


They didn't intend to expose Reed as a hoaxer, rather to expose the video as a hoax. Ben says during the show "We are just going to focus on the actual video." Otherwise, the investigation would have been about him like the investigation UFO Watchdog did. They would have found out that he's a compulsive liar, that he's not a doctor, that he has never owned a dog, that he doesn't go hiking, that he had planned this hoax and had discussed it with others years before, and that there is evidence that he's never been "on the run" or in hiding.


Andy i just want to thank you because reading your post gave me a great laugh for today. thank you. keep them acoming too.



posted on Nov, 16 2010 @ 06:18 AM
link   
How i feel about the show, it is utter trash!

www.abovetopsecret.com...


Dont bother with that shill show check out Ancient Aliens instead you might learn something.
edit on 16-11-2010 by Unknown Soldier because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 16 2010 @ 07:16 AM
link   


Dont bother with that shill show check out Ancient Aliens instead you might learn something.


I did and I did... that the "History" channel has turned into the Sci Fi Channel, and The Sci Fi channel has turned into The Wrestling Channel, and that people are willing to believe anything if it's presented in a "documentary" format.



posted on Nov, 16 2010 @ 07:36 AM
link   

Originally posted by draknoir2


Dont bother with that shill show check out Ancient Aliens instead you might learn something.


I did and I did... that the "History" channel has turned into the Sci Fi Channel, and The Sci Fi channel has turned into The Wrestling Channel, and that people are willing to believe anything if it's presented in a "documentary" format.



So when do we get to the truth? or how will we know weve heard the truth? and how should the truth be presented?



posted on Nov, 16 2010 @ 07:38 AM
link   

Originally posted by MrAndy
reply to post by Unknown Origin
 


They didn't intend to expose Reed as a hoaxer, rather to expose the video as a hoax. Ben says during the show "We are just going to focus on the actual video." Otherwise, the investigation would have been about him like the investigation UFO Watchdog did. They would have found out that he's a compulsive liar, that he's not a doctor, that he has never owned a dog, that he doesn't go hiking, that he had planned this hoax and had discussed it with others years before, and that there is evidence that he's never been "on the run" or in hiding.


This is all old news, though. No serious investigation going on in the show... they pretty much know what the explanation is before they reproduce it. Like they did with the balloon flying saucer - it was known to be a balloon a year before they did the "investigation". Reed's hoax was fourteen years old.

For entertainment purposes only.



posted on Nov, 16 2010 @ 07:45 AM
link   
i find that the "investigations" these shows take on, are always ones with some dispute. why don't they take on the big cases where the have been hundreds of people that have seen the same thing, at the same time and location.
how about that korean or japanese commercial airliner that had a craft hovering around it for several minutes. why don't they simply get the pilots AND the passengers stories on what they saw. or the mass sightings in south america, where an entire village were witnesses and the army came out and they witnessed it too.
or the "phoneix lights" case, in that one i have yet to see a story about all the hundreds of people that saw it for many miles over a time span of 30 to 40 minutes along the road going toward tucson.
this show, like all these shows, choose very carefully what they are going to present. they do not want to create waves, just ratings.
edit on 16-11-2010 by jimmyx because: grammer error



posted on Nov, 16 2010 @ 07:47 AM
link   

Originally posted by haglebert

Originally posted by draknoir2


Dont bother with that shill show check out Ancient Aliens instead you might learn something.


I did and I did... that the "History" channel has turned into the Sci Fi Channel, and The Sci Fi channel has turned into The Wrestling Channel, and that people are willing to believe anything if it's presented in a "documentary" format.



So when do we get to the truth? or how will we know weve heard the truth? and how should the truth be presented?


Peer reviewed reports from genuine scientists and scholars instead of wildly speculative, unsubstantiated "theories" from the usual, uncredentialed suspects that are used as "experts" in every UFO show. We all know who they are.

edit on 16-11-2010 by draknoir2 because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 16 2010 @ 08:09 AM
link   
reply to post by The Shrike
 


saw the episode last night--first time i saw the show-- still not quite sure how the ability to recreate a video (whether it is bigfoot or an alien or a mothman) automatically debunks it.



posted on Nov, 16 2010 @ 11:59 AM
link   
exactly. i was thinking to myself last night, what exactly is the point of the show if you can recreate anything with cgi. and since we know cgi can recreate anything then what is the point of this show?



posted on Nov, 16 2010 @ 12:07 PM
link   
reply to post by haglebert
 



So when do we get to the truth? or how will we know weve heard the truth? and how should the truth be presented?


The truth of something that has the magnitude of aliens and ufo's can only be found when the general public takes it seriously. A quick browse through this very forum should answer all your concerns regarding that.
edit on 16-11-2010 by IgnoreTheFacts because: [....]...wrong symbols.....



posted on Nov, 16 2010 @ 04:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by haglebert
Andy i just want to thank you because reading your post gave me a great laugh for today. thank you. keep them acoming too.


I personally think it is more sad that people believe this hoax than it is funny. Ufology will never get respect when people are trying to pass off cases like this as real.


Originally posted by draknoir2
This is all old news, though. No serious investigation going on in the show... they pretty much know what the explanation is before they reproduce it.


That's absolute bunk, you haven't seen enough of the show. In "Hyperjunk", their attempts to recreate a UFO are interrupted when they spot an actual UFO. In "Unwanted Visitors", they were sure to be able to recreate the video, even I was positive about that one being a hoax, but they couldn't replicate it. In "Houseguest", they already knew how they could get words to appear in the photographs, but couldn't replicate it. In "Rollover", it looked like a hoax but they were amazed when the car actually seemed to move itself uphill. They were genuinely surprised that it was an optical illusion and they were actually going downhill. Should I go on?



posted on Nov, 16 2010 @ 04:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by MrAndy

Originally posted by haglebert
Andy i just want to thank you because reading your post gave me a great laugh for today. thank you. keep them acoming too.


I personally think it is more sad that people believe this hoax than it is funny. Ufology will never get respect when people are trying to pass off cases like this as real.


Originally posted by draknoir2
This is all old news, though. No serious investigation going on in the show... they pretty much know what the explanation is before they reproduce it.


That's absolute bunk, you haven't seen enough of the show. In "Hyperjunk", their attempts to recreate a UFO are interrupted when they spot an actual UFO. In "Unwanted Visitors", they were sure to be able to recreate the video, even I was positive about that one being a hoax, but they couldn't replicate it. In "Houseguest", they already knew how they could get words to appear in the photographs, but couldn't replicate it. In "Rollover", it looked like a hoax but they were amazed when the car actually seemed to move itself uphill. They were genuinely surprised that it was an optical illusion and they were actually going downhill. Should I go on?


Sorry. They knew damned well that the "gravity anomaly" was a topographic illusion, which is why it was one of their canned "tests". It's as formatted as it gets. And of course they aren't going to "be able to" reproduce everything in the allotted number of attempts... it would be bad for the show. They'd have to rename it "Paranormal Files - Faked".

But do go on.



posted on Nov, 16 2010 @ 07:43 PM
link   
reply to post by draknoir2
 


I don't see why I would "go on", considering you ignored everything else I mentioned. What reason do you have to believe that they already knew it was an illusion before they went there? It would be a good start if you could support your criticism.



posted on Nov, 16 2010 @ 10:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by MrAndy

Originally posted by haglebert
Andy i just want to thank you because reading your post gave me a great laugh for today. thank you. keep them acoming too.


I personally think it is more sad that people believe this hoax than it is funny. Ufology will never get respect when people are trying to pass off cases like this as real.


Originally posted by draknoir2
This is all old news, though. No serious investigation going on in the show... they pretty much know what the explanation is before they reproduce it.


That's absolute bunk, you haven't seen enough of the show. In "Hyperjunk", their attempts to recreate a UFO are interrupted when they spot an actual UFO. In "Unwanted Visitors", they were sure to be able to recreate the video, even I was positive about that one being a hoax, but they couldn't replicate it. In "Houseguest", they already knew how they could get words to appear in the photographs, but couldn't replicate it. In "Rollover", it looked like a hoax but they were amazed when the car actually seemed to move itself uphill. They were genuinely surprised that it was an optical illusion and they were actually going downhill. Should I go on?


LOL. I think its funny knowing that its not a hoax and people like yourself continue trying to convince people it is a hoax. Thats another reason why I laugh so hard. Its funny knowing for a fact its real and you say no its not. Thats just funny to me thats all. Cheers.



posted on Nov, 16 2010 @ 10:39 PM
link   

Originally posted by IgnoreTheFacts
reply to post by haglebert
 



So when do we get to the truth? or how will we know weve heard the truth? and how should the truth be presented?


The truth of something that has the magnitude of aliens and ufo's can only be found when the general public takes it seriously. A quick browse through this very forum should answer all your concerns regarding that.
edit on 16-11-2010 by IgnoreTheFacts because: [....]...wrong symbols.....


Ignore if you ever want to know about this case you should get in contact with Jonathan Reed yourself. Its fun to play with the morons, and the debunkers, and the skeptics, and the disinformation idiots on these sites every now and then but nothing beats seeing this # for yourself.




top topics



 
2
<< 1    3  4 >>

log in

join