posted on Mar, 20 2012 @ 01:50 AM
reply to post by Gerizo
Seemed to me that anyone who did not even try to understand what the reasons were why it was considered a hoax, were the ones who were not open to any
To them it was 100% a real video OR something amazing that it would cots tens of thousands and take up to 12 staff, using specific and expensive
equipment to hoax.
To this, points were raised such as cost, equipment, editing factors, no interviewer at all on video.. all ignored.
The only evidence there was that this may have even been genuine was slowly chipped away at with scrutiny and factoring in other things such as new
evidence where the same guy has been PROVEN to hoax himself into an audience, and other things like brand new members on the day with evidence such as
blurry photos and all with a similar interest in ignoring any of the counter points put out, and who either run away or back to the WHY IS THIS IN THE
A newspaper clipping from the 80's - if not degraded to hell - would not look that good 1 week after it was printed. Le alone, one that somehow
manages to avoid all the interference digitizing a photo entails. it comes out like PDF!.
The video, imo, had absolutely none of the audio issues from any analog recording of the time, let alone any degradation to the video/audio over time.
Too crisp, too sepia. Too 'read your brain now build your world' star trek convenient.
But then again, ATS need another endless 700 page "Yes it is!" "No its not!" debate...