UFO over White House

Sorry to repeat but it's bugging me : why would we have a pic of a plane there if it's a no-fly zone? Maybe it's not even really there and has been digitally added?

reply to post by Hitoshura


It's not over the White House, it's probably several miles away, whereas the White house appears to be less than a mile away.

Originally posted by Chadwickus
reply to post by Hitoshura

 

It's not over the White House, it's probably several miles away, whereas the White house appears to be less than a mile away.

edit on 12/2/11 by Chadwickus because: (no reason given)

Ah right, cheers. Was thinking that pic actually had the Whitehouse in the distance and that plane was almost over it. I'm not from the US though so making that mistake doesn't bother me too much!

Hey... did anyone else get sent to some stupid "trojan checker" site when they clicked on the video? I am not sure why I did, but if anyone else did to, I would recommend this thread be removed immediately!

Originally posted by Hitoshura
I'm not from the US though so making that mistake doesn't bother me too much!

For some reason the phrase "deny ignorance" pops to mind

Originally posted by zorgon

Originally posted by Hitoshura
I'm not from the US though so making that mistake doesn't bother me too much!

For some reason the phrase "deny ignorance" pops to mind

Agreed, and it's bugging me now so am off to check where it is from that pics point of view. Ok, finally got it. Hopefully the White House is on the very left of that pic then, or even further off left than the actual pic.

Originally posted by illuminatuscadabra
So maybe they can work CG in digitally, however it doesn't mean they were in the air real time. So Eye would second the request for the eyes to the sky. None of the feeds can be seen as truly live. Seeing is not necessarily believing anymore. Wonder... was there ever really a time when the camera didn't lie?

Yes years ago the camera didn't lie. It learned how to do that with the help of humans. Not only did it not lie but its product was worth 1000 words! Now with inflation a picture is only worth the paper its printed on or the bits it uses in your computer.

Hate to add more fuel to the hoaxers but the second pic has the same solid light seemingly in the background on the left side of the sky like it's moved further away.

Nice artwork but if they think they're fooling ATS, no chance

reply to post by WhizPhiz



It has become my experience that whenever a UFO or anything extraordinary appears in a video along with music, it's usually a hoax.
I'd say 9.9 times out of 10, it's not real. After all, who would have to presence of mind to include music if their intent was to just get the information out asap?

It's staging. It's sensationalism. It's showcasing. It's all that and more.

So heed the warning for all future UFO videos from now until Dec 21 2012

reply to post by Human_Alien


Or even October 28th 2011 if you read some posts around ATS.

Funny idea though, are the majority of hoaxes made by people having a laugh or people purposefully discrediting for the alleged "false flag" scenario?

Well it's the 13th now? Has anything been seen? Should this now be moved to the hoax section?

EDIT: Sorry, I guess they have until the end of today.

I think this can safely be moved to the hoax forum now, this is quoted directly from the portal report website:

Last night, before I want to bed, I saw a huge commercial airliner, right in the middle of the web cam screen, over the White House . So, I thought to myself: "Ok, there goes the No Fly Zone theory". Then, this morning, I wake up and load the web cam. I see a long exposure of red car lights that extend down a street for about as long as the lights in the sky were captured yesterday. I have to be honest, and I don't want to knowingly spread disinformation. I have come to the conclusion that the photos I showed in the YouTube videos are long exposure pictures of planes or helicopters. Please accept my apology. It was a false alarm. However, I still wish to watch the skies of Washington, and hopefully there will be some real evidence.

Leonard

reply to post by WhizPhiz


At least this seems to be an honest mistake and not an intentional hoax. Those are acceptable, if not a bit trigger-happy, so to speak.

Originally posted by WhizPhiz
I think this can safely be moved to the hoax forum now, this is quoted directly from the portal report website:

It's still the 13th.

Maybe wait until it's the 14th?

reply to post by Seitler

At least this seems to be an honest mistake and not an intentional hoax

No, well it is still a hoax. Because the actual Agency guys never appeared in their crafts over the white house like they said they would. They've been trying so hard for so long to gain credibility but all they've done is lose all hopes of gaining any credibility by making false predictions.

So it looks like another epic fail for "The Agency" I can't say I'm surprised really. If anyone out there wants a good laugh you should check out the T's & C's for the Portal Report forum. I especially like the part that says that you can get banned just for "annoying" the bloke who's running the site now. And I can confirm that he means it as I've had 3 accounts banned so far!

Happy Monday everyone.

Rev

just one thing about the pic is why aren't any of the cars seen as lines in the long exposure shots?

Originally posted by Slipdig1
just one thing about the pic is why aren't any of the cars seen as lines in the long exposure shots?

Looks like this is one :