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.

 

Dome Of The Rock UFO: Hoaxes Are Easy - Extended Discussion.

page: 16
159
<< 13  14  15    17  18  19 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 17 2011 @ 06:17 AM
link   

Originally posted by nitro67
You all might find this really funny considering how many times I have posted on this thread but I just watched the recreation in the beginning of this thread for the first time and all I have to say is wow! That looks nothing like the original, what a f-ing joke! I dont even know why I started to post in this thread in the first place. HAHAHAHAHA poor delusional skeptics! If that video came out and was claiming to be authentic NO ONE would believe it, OBVIOUS fake. Waste of time. Night of a thousand lights is coming soon enough....every eye shall see.


Delusional sceptics? I think you'll find there is nothing delusional about being sceptical, especially when as current, this video is still more of a hoax than proof of anything else.
I guess we shall see when this interview pops up and if it gives any more information.
The interviewer was intending to ask for the original footage and phone for analysis so I guess we shall see if the claimant is forth coming.

Your last comment is even more unsubstantiated and no more proof of anything other that an over active imagination. Get a grip dude.




posted on Feb, 17 2011 @ 06:35 AM
link   
reply to post by StarblazerUK
 


True enough there is nothing delusional about being skeptical. Quite the opposite. I just think its delusional to think that the recreation from the beginning of this thread is even a little like the original video. And yeah I should cut back on my tongue in cheek comments.



posted on Feb, 17 2011 @ 08:31 AM
link   
reply to post by nitro67
 


I agree the first video doesn't look like the original, but then it is faked and we all know that this one was faked to prove that it is more than possible. Without knowing the exact tools and having the source materials used, it's hard to recreate it faithfully i suppose, but this does highlight that you do have to be more sceptical about what you see as for the un-wise, that would be a sure thing.

Don't worry about the tongue in cheek, we all do it lol. Humor can be a great thing, just doesn't come across the way we hope some times.



posted on Feb, 17 2011 @ 08:38 AM
link   
reply to post by Agarta
 


Hi, Pastor Swope here.

Thanks for the link. Yes the video shows a ball of light. As to what it is along with any other phenomena in the entire Fortean field, let alone the matter of UFOs is an open debate. This object appeared at a major Holy Site for the 3 leading Monotheistic religions. Are we suppose to say it could not be an angelic visitor because it was a ball? If you expect a humanoid with bird wings then your senses are brainwashed by modern media and not historic documentation. Most divine encounters are described by an overpowering light along with the witness hearing a voice. Rarely is there a form and never in scripture has an angel been portrayed as the cupid type creature as created by Renaissance artists.

I also find it a bit hypocritical attesting that I cannot have an opinion as to the nature of an unidentified object without scorn when many would try to attest it is those in the church who hold rigid beliefs and berate others who have opposing views.

Is it an angel? It could be, I do not know. Is it an extra-terrestrial craft? It could be, I do not know. Is it a secret government plane, a multidimensional traveler, visitors from our future, a hoax? All could be valid because we do not know. I was trying to submit a conclusion that might have otherwise escaped others.



posted on Feb, 17 2011 @ 08:46 AM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 



posted on Feb, 17 2011 @ 08:48 AM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 



posted on Feb, 17 2011 @ 08:54 AM
link   

Originally posted by Pimander
I wasn't going to mention that. Anyone doubting what FlyInTheOintment is saying should take a look at this thread. FlyInTheOintment is quickly misrepresented with a twisting of his words. (Lied about?)

The number of times WingedBull and his side-kick in that thread make false accusations or bend the facts is untrue. If you doubt me have a look.


By all means, I encourage everyone to review that thread. They will see that no one was misrepresented, facts bent or false accusations made. FlyIntheOintment accused academia of being corrupt and covering up evidence that would validate Sitchin. I asked him to back that up. Both FlyIntheOintment and Piemander outright refused, instead they tried to argue semantics and complain that there words were being twisted. Then when neither tactic worked anymore, they left the conversation.


Originally posted by Pimander
I have withdrawn from the debate other that to be a messenger of Robert Schoch, who was accused of not being the man to trust on his own theory.


You were asked to explain an inconsistency in his theory. You refused, instead tried to distract. When that did not work, you withdrew from the conversation.


Originally posted by Pimander
Suffice it to say, FlyInTheOintment was driven from the thread by the tactics of ostracising and harassing any who challenge orthodoxy. How is that not trying to control what is discussed? It's bullying tactics...


Only the smallest minds think that asking for evidence to back up your claims is "otracising", "harassing" and "bullying".



posted on Feb, 17 2011 @ 09:02 AM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 



posted on Feb, 17 2011 @ 09:02 AM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 



posted on Feb, 17 2011 @ 09:06 AM
link   

Originally posted by StarblazerUK
reply to post by nitro67
 


I agree the first video doesn't look like the original, but then it is faked and we all know that this one was faked to prove that it is more than possible. Without knowing the exact tools and having the source materials used, it's hard to recreate it faithfully i suppose, but this does highlight that you do have to be more sceptical about what you see as for the un-wise, that would be a sure thing.

Don't worry about the tongue in cheek, we all do it lol. Humor can be a great thing, just doesn't come across the way we hope some times.


I am still impressed by the original video. This recreation blows, sorry. Its like taking video of a zebra in Africa than coming home to the farm getting out the black and white paint and painting the horse and calling it a zebra. Or better yet painting a cardboard cutout of a horse like a zebra, videotaping it and calling it the zebra. The confusion as to the original and the later added videos reminds me of when the media was showing footage of the Kazakhstan "missile" for the ufos seen over china this past summer. Of course you have to be rational and not believe everything or anything that people present to you as the truth. So what if it was a mother ship hovering over the Dome? What does it mean to you? Are you not going to go to work this morning? Still going to brush your teeth? Are you going to shave your head, strip naked and run around proclaiming the end is nigh?
edit on 17-2-2011 by nitro67 because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 17 2011 @ 11:21 AM
link   
reply to post by SkepticOverlord
 


Close, but a few details;

The dynamic range of the video is uncanny. Night-time videos should show more CCD / CMOS noise.

Also, insufficient CCD blooming and streaking as would happen if a real object of that brightness was shown (bright enough to iluminate the ground.

You can think of ways to simulate some of those to varying degrees of accuracy. The blooming and streaking being the toughest.

-Aurelio



posted on Feb, 17 2011 @ 12:02 PM
link   
reply to post by rickyrrr
 


All of which could be added given more than two hours of time.


And... much of which is missing from the "original" four hoaxed videos.

Also... don't forget that the process of uploading to YouTube and the resulting compression codec will often remove (or obscure) the CCD noise resulting from lower-quality equipment such as video-capable cell phones.
edit on 17-2-2011 by SkepticOverlord because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 17 2011 @ 12:23 PM
link   
reply to post by SkepticOverlord
 


I am really disappointed in your recreation. I understand you only took two hours to do this, and it would take me a much longer time to do even what you did, so dont take this as an insult. I am just wondering if you could take the time to do a more convincing video. I mean it really looks nothing like the original. Clearly a still photo. It would help your cause of showing to people how easy it is to hoax a video if it were more convincing. All you have proven is that it is very easy to make a poorly made not in the least bit convincing video. Get any tips from Billy Meier?



posted on Feb, 17 2011 @ 12:52 PM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 



posted on Feb, 17 2011 @ 02:20 PM
link   
reply to post by SkepticOverlord
 


I realize this occurrence has been mostly kept to is it real or not but even when I posted this video on Disclose.tv(sorry) I didn't care whether it was a real UFO or not. What I Was and still am concerned with is Why there? This is an extremely volatile location and that fact seems to be overlooked on both sites. I have also heard that there were witnesses on the ground(unverified) if this is true (whether it was a hologram or not) it shows A location choice. My question is why?



posted on Feb, 17 2011 @ 02:24 PM
link   
People... please.

Stop the immature tit-for-tat focus on each other, and bring the discussion of this thread back to the intended origins: the ease with which hoax UFO videos may be created by nearly anyone with a computer and Internet connection.



posted on Feb, 17 2011 @ 02:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by Agarta
I have also heard that there were witnesses on the ground(unverified) if this is true (whether it was a hologram or not) it shows A location choice. My question is why?

Thus far, no independent source has provided information about eyewitnesses who are not connected to the parties who created the hoax videos.

As to the location, I'm sure it's a combination of two factors:
1) A controversial and identifiable landmark
2) A landmark with a wealth of online photos to use as backdrops in the videos



posted on Feb, 17 2011 @ 02:34 PM
link   
reply to post by SkepticOverlord
 


I realize and you are correct but by the location as a major role in the final days AND the fact that it is already housed in conflict was this video created to amplify? And if so which side, Peace or to instigate conflict



posted on Feb, 17 2011 @ 04:47 PM
link   
reply to post by SkepticOverlord
 


I noticed you confirmed this case a hoax because of the editing but yet the copy of the hoax video you produced was an obvious cut-out

Why didn't you use editing instead of stills and lights and a shaky camera??..seeing how your whole hoax theory was based on editing??



posted on Feb, 17 2011 @ 04:56 PM
link   
reply to post by SkepticOverlord
 


I mean why didn't you use your editing skills to re-create the video instead of the obvious still and light with a shaky camera that you used.

I thought maybe with your..what was it,20 years of experience with editing you would have used editing,but you didn't use editing in your re-creation.Seems odd don't you think?



new topics

top topics



 
159
<< 13  14  15    17  18  19 >>

log in

join