The Amaury Rivera case, page 2

privacy

Pages: << 1 2 >>
ATS Members have flagged this thread 5 times

reply posted on 2-2-2009 @ 06:28 PM by jackphotohobby

Originally posted by DaMod
reply to post by jackphotohobby

I can give you a number of ways to fake those pictures with a film camera, including repeat exposures, models, and messing during development. With scanned-in images the options for digital manipulation are numerous.

However, in a case like this the pictures are so poor, and the information so third-hand, that there's very little point in me commenting on it. It says the pictures were analysed by experts - in which case who? What did they find?

If there's a silence from 'debunkers' it's because it's very difficult to prove something or disprove something on the basis of poor evidence. All we can do is say what we think is probable given the available evidence.

Ummm, it was pre-digital camera tech and was reviewed by NASA (said it was not tampered with in any way). Of course had you read all the posts you would have known that.

[edit on 2-2-2009 by DaMod]

I had read all of the posts and you'll note that I said:

I can give you a number of ways to fake those pictures with a film camera, including repeat exposures, models, and messing during development. With scanned-in images the options for digital manipulation are numerous.

All of that applies to film. I'll give you a clue: Only the last sentence applies just to digital cameras. I included it because the images have been converted to a digital format. Maybe even scanned in from a book.

As for experts - name them.

Saying something like "reviewed by NASA" is pretty meaningless without who, why, where, when and the results. The website could be wrong. They may be cherry-picking the bits of the analysis which support their beliefs.

Anyone can say they've had an expert examine something. Without providing the evidence that an expert has examined something it's anecdotal.

The fact that information came from a website that takes George Adamski seriously makes me think their fact-checking probably isn't up to much...

I am not going to believe something wasn't tampered or that an expert endorsed it just because a website says so.

If I did I'd probably be waiting for a free iPod and my money to come through from a prince in Nigeria...

reply posted on 3-2-2009 @ 01:13 AM by kronos11

Originally posted by jackphotohobby
Saying something like "reviewed by NASA" is pretty meaningless without who, why, where, when and the results. The website could be wrong. They may be cherry-picking the bits of the analysis which support their beliefs.

Anyone can say they've had an expert examine something. Without providing the evidence that an expert has examined something it's anecdotal.

There was a book written on the case called "UFO Capture of Two F-14 Jets," it is detailed that the photos were examined by several civilian Nasa photo experts. The book was co-authored by retired Air Force pilot Wendelle Stevens.

www.ufophotoarchives.org...

I researched Stevens a bit and it appears that he is not one to simply believe everything he writes about.. he follows the scientific method with his discovery and merely presents the facts in the case.

Another detail that most continually ignore is that Amaury was harassed on several occasions by American agents after the encounter, even to the point of raiding his house looking for the negatives and pictures he took. this is attested to by many witnesses to the case.

What one really must ask is what does this guy Amaury, or Martin for that matter, have to gain from this? to be ridiculed? they didn't make any money and in every respect Amaury looks frightened and still in shock in the video IMO. let me ask any of you who think that he appears untruthful.. what would you do if this happened to you? well i can answer from experience that months, even years down the road you are still shocked, uncomfortable and beside yourself every time you are forced to remember much less recall it.

[edit on 3-2-2009 by kronos11]

reply posted on 3-2-2009 @ 12:58 PM by CrabPaste!!!

You wouldn't have to think about the answer to the questions, it would come out natural, not like a rehearsed diatribe. The pauses and body language just reek of BS. Just imagine if that had happened to you, you'd not be able to stop talking and I'm sure in fine detail. the bloke has little to nothing to actually say, like he's just got out of bed and done nothing all day. he prolly spends more time explaining why he had a camera on him than what happened to him.

He might well of made no money, But he didn't know that would be the case before he tried.

There's just no explanation as to why/who/where/when the 2 little men got him out of his car that was prolly travelling along quite happily at 30mph or whatever.

Pure Bollocks mate, and if you can't see it, well I suppose some people are born blind.

[edit on 3-2-2009 by CrabPaste!!!]

reply posted on 3-2-2009 @ 06:19 PM by B3...

Originally posted by CrabPaste!!!
Body language, arms folded, direction of eyes when answering etc etc

Yes correct, there is problem with sub conscious body language, break pattern recover, right hand sub raport mechanish, self anchor mechanism and blink rate and mimimick pattern when talking which shows that he is telling truth.

On introduction when he states name and city he is telling truth. slow left/right and deep breath. he made first hand raport with word "photograph" which says he didnt taked whose pictures, blink rate increase what mean he lied about his cousin wanted him to photograph "music group.

"Other people from portorico, I guess" hand raport for 3 of them.
"2 small beings" shoulders "i dont know" and eye raport. true
"Long hair to the shoulders" sub raport to his hair and mouth. true recolection from memory.
"warious projections" Arm ancor hand up, sub head raport.

Break pattern of thinking,
"First I remember" means repeating what we heard-words then change pattern - skip to his left side recolecting memory.
"Meteor or rock folling to earth" head tilt raport to defeseless.
After word "BUT" "whole world" is raport to his oppinion.

Some sort of "arrtificial island" sub hand up/eye raport with "black dirty sea" changeing pattern. "Pictures to public" hand opposite of speaking person.

Reporter break pattern with Jets question... "yes it was, they seem to BE" eyes Up to sky - sub pattern to recolect visual anchor angle of his eyes shows vision/visual memory angle of 30 degree.

reply posted on 4-2-2009 @ 12:50 AM by kronos11

Originally posted by CrabPaste!!!
You wouldn't have to think about the answer to the questions, it would come out natural, not like a rehearsed diatribe. The pauses and body language just reek of BS. Just imagine if that had happened to you, you'd not be able to stop talking and I'm sure in fine detail. the bloke has little to nothing to actually say, like he's just got out of bed and done nothing all day. he prolly spends more time explaining why he had a camera on him than what happened to him.

He might well of made no money, But he didn't know that would be the case before he tried.

i completely disagree. when investigating a case like this there are generally a number of factors that would be needed to substantiate it, not just one.. especially when it's something as debatable as whether or not this man is lying on camera. you are still leaving out the rest of the details of the case such as the fact that there was a wedding that day that he did attend, as well as the many family members corroborating the fact that american men raided his home shortly after the event.

at this point we'll never know until someone can thoroughly debunk the photos when nasa photo experts were given the prints and could not find them to be fakes. they felt even though some of the maneuvers the F14s display in the photos seem improbably they are not impossible.

reply posted on 15-7-2010 @ 09:45 AM by OneLife

Bumping this as he was right all along. He refers to the gulf as being black and dirty and this was done some years ago before the oil spill even happened. The higher ups in the universe aren't evil guys. :p Hopefully I'm not breaking rules for this being my first post? Just wanted to bring this to light.

www.youtube.com...#!

The video of his small interview. The next stage is a meteorite shooting down to earth into the gulf and their being an island in the gulf where the NWO will float on..

I saw a thread (can't find the link) about perfect triangles mined/formed into the gulf at the sea floor. Not sure how they play into the prophecy but it'd explain why they're there. Now, does the meteorite fall to earth before those islands are raised or after?