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.
Originally posted by ExCloud
Originally posted by DeboWilliams
Originally posted by FlySolo
reply to post by DeboWilliams
I went back as far as 08 and the camera moves, give me a break.
Yea, the camera moves, but between the 1-28 and today it hasn't, which means his CURRENT statement saying that you cannot see the dome in frame is valid for it's CURRENT position. Your argument would only work if it's orientation would've changed between these 2 date, THEN maybe you could say his statement wouldn't matter.
So thank you for throwing everyone off track with this bit of information, theres clearly a few people who was following your information to the T as proof, but unfortunately your debunking skills have led them astray.
"but it is located at the right (east) part of the picture" meaning it is in picture, but it can not be seen due to distance and stuff in front of it. Thats what I get from it.
Originally posted by ExCloud
Originally posted by DeboWilliams
Originally posted by FlySolo
reply to post by DeboWilliams
I went back as far as 08 and the camera moves, give me a break.
Yea, the camera moves, but between the 1-28 and today it hasn't, which means his CURRENT statement saying that you cannot see the dome in frame is valid for it's CURRENT position. Your argument would only work if it's orientation would've changed between these 2 date, THEN maybe you could say his statement wouldn't matter.
So thank you for throwing everyone off track with this bit of information, theres clearly a few people who was following your information to the T as proof, but unfortunately your debunking skills have led them astray.
"but it is located at the right (east) part of the picture" meaning it is in picture, but it can not be seen due to distance and stuff in front of it. Thats what I get from it.
Originally posted by amodedoma
reply to post by Mr Mask
I believe that planting hoax video evidence is the easiest way to discredit an authentic event. It's easier than planning and carrying out a hoax in the first place. Video evidence will never prove anything for just this reason. When I saw three glowing orbs floating over my town, I know what I saw. I also knew that it would have been embarassingly foolish of me to record it on video and post it, for reasons that are clearly obvious. It's not that unusual for unexplainable aerial phenomenon to occur, and it seems to me a reasonable thing to be interested in. But suddenly a bunch of kooks appear telling stories of flying saucers and alien abductions, and surprise, suprise, nothing happened, it's all bunk, and why are you wasting your time on this stuff. It all follows a carefully devised plan to keep people from becoming too curious about unexplained aerial phenomenon, but why?
Originally posted by ExCloud
reply to post by DeboWilliams
I took exactly what the Manager said and he said "but it is located at the right (east) part of the picture" he also says "the dome of the rock is not seen in the picture" obviously you can not see it. Take into account distance and objects in front of it. It is in the picture though according to quote 1 just not visible according to quote 2
I also await his response if I am wrong I am wrong, but I will not just not question the facts. I wont do that. Thanks for asking him.
Originally posted by FlySolo
Well, just as I thought, my thread got trashed. Any new evidence posted must be sorted out through this heap.
Originally posted by haketem
reply to post by Ashtrei
Hence their youtube username - YDM... no?
Originally posted by TinkererJim
I'm leaning towards hoax on this one, however, for many FX experts here who say it's an obvious hoax, and not a very good one at that...can you provide links to "really good" CGI hoaxes?
Originally posted by annella
I wonder if Jeff Ritzmann ( jritzmann) has been in lately.....he is great analysing photos, actually he is on the ATS list for helping out in this area, and Im sure he does vids too?
I will go U2U him and see if he can add his opinion.
Just a quick note to those willing to dismiss this because of the stabilization point:
This is nighttime footage, heavily compressed JPEG. Doing a stabilization pass - motion tracking with After Effects, I'll presume, though I don't think the poster was specific, please correct me if I'm wrong - on this kind of footage, is one note short of silly. If I'm supposed to come to the conclusion that we're looking at a comp consisting of a blue or greenscreen shot of the guy standing in front of the wall, with the city composited into the background, and the whole thing motion locked for the camera tilt up, well, sorry, I don't buy it.
dB
-- Thu 23:10 James: I have one last question, I observed a light that appeared in the archive videos for the webcam "All-day pictures in a clip", video date 28-01-2011. This light appears at 2011-01-27 23:57:56, 2011-01-28 00:57:59 and 2011-01-28 04:18:06. This light blinks and disappears. You can observe it in that video, and it appears in the right middle location of that video. I was curious about the lights location, could it have appeared directly above the Dome of the rock? I know this is a odd question but I thank you for your help
-- Thu 23:23 02WS Manager As I sad, the dome of the rock is not seen in the picture. So, it can not be directly above it.