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.

 

[HOAX]saw flying metallic disk in nashville... WITH PICS... and now my dog is sick[HOAX]

page: 22
74
<< 19  20  21    23  24  25 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 12 2012 @ 11:45 AM
link   
reply to post by Starwise
 


Thanks for the info. I honestly had no idea........




posted on Apr, 12 2012 @ 11:46 AM
link   

Originally posted by SkepticOverlord

Originally posted by MegaMind
So since your an expert was it a tossed disk or are the photos fake?

Given the proposed erratic behavior shown in the three images, tossed.


If it was tossed then why is there no motion blur in the image?
The object would have to be fairly static to display little to no motion blur.



posted on Apr, 12 2012 @ 11:46 AM
link   
reply to post by RickyVelveeta
 


As a life long experience'r myself I must admit these images look a great deal like the images produced in the URZI UFO case... which could actually mean they are real.. or unfortunately could mean they are a "copy paste" job as well. So I myself am not sure but I'm skeptical even being a real experience'r...

That said I am noticing a few people that are just out of hand with the debunking and even a few more people that are always on the forum daily that seem to be doing damage control. Like they had a meeting and said...

"OK guys 2012 is going to be tough any postings that are possibly legit or any postings that are obvious fakes lets debunk whole hearted no matter what... We have to nip this thing in the bud before it gets out of hand and we have a disclosure on our hands before .. the time."

Or maybe it's always been like that and I'm just starting to notice...

ATS is not the place to discuss UFO's or any other esoteric subject for that matter but especially UFO material. With out a doubt you will be made to look like a fool no matter if you have been stared in the face by a very tall mantis being or not. Even if you have seen the cages or the underground bases with your own eyes. Even if you have been trained by blue eyed tall ones with feet like a bird on how to detect screens from other factions and you know beyond any shadow of a doubt that you have been interacting with these multi-dimensional beings many many times it just wont matter.... your a liar and a nutcase here on ATS...What a shame....

-FG



posted on Apr, 12 2012 @ 11:47 AM
link   
reply to post by MegaMind
 


Exactly my point!!

JT



posted on Apr, 12 2012 @ 11:48 AM
link   

Originally posted by SpaceMonkeys

Originally posted by SkepticOverlord

Originally posted by MegaMind
So since your an expert was it a tossed disk or are the photos fake?

Given the proposed erratic behavior shown in the three images, tossed.


If it was tossed then why is there no motion blur in the image?
The object would have to be fairly static to display little to no motion blur.


Or the capture speed really good. Which is why I asked earlier if anyone was familiar with this camera's speed and any effects of blurring an object in motion ...


edit on 12-4-2012 by MegaMind because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 12 2012 @ 11:49 AM
link   
If this was on a grand stage of federal government and supreme court this would be absurd to bann someone over guessing it is a hoax.



posted on Apr, 12 2012 @ 11:55 AM
link   

Originally posted by SpaceMonkeys

Originally posted by SkepticOverlord

Originally posted by MegaMind
So since your an expert was it a tossed disk or are the photos fake?

Given the proposed erratic behavior shown in the three images, tossed.


If it was tossed then why is there no motion blur in the image?
The object would have to be fairly static to display little to no motion blur.


from the camera:

Exposure Time = 1/1062"
F Number = F2.4
ISO Speed Ratings = 64

That speed would freeze an object not moving very fast.



posted on Apr, 12 2012 @ 11:56 AM
link   

Originally posted by MegaMind
I am simply questioning the banning of a member based on nothing more than an opinion ... however well that opinion may be formed.

Are we so afraid of what the OP has to say that we can't let him speak in his defense?

What harm is there in allowing this thread to sit in the UFO forum and allow the OP to explain further?
edit on 12-4-2012 by MegaMind because: (no reason given)


I understand that, but several people posted analyses beyond "it looks like something tossed in the air". Time stamps were compared, angles were compared, positions at a given time, etc.

So what you have is a) probability by itself, which doesn't favor this being real, and b) some analyses that support the probabilities.

Putting those two things together, I'm sorry, but I think the mods are more than justified to call this a hoax.

And this is an internet forum. There are policies in place. If you post a hoax, you get banned. And who ultimately decides this? The site owners and mods. That's not some police state, that's just the way it is. To surmise that the mods are unfair based on this one example is ridiculous, given the sheer amount of nonsense that is allowed on ATS on any given day.

I'm sorry, but it's still funny to me how quickly the tables have turned where those in the believer camp are all of a sudden calling for "absolute proof". You want absolute proof when a poster is banned, but not when it comes to perhaps the most extraordinary discovery in human history.

(By the way, MegaMind, that isn't directed at you specifically, but to the believer side in general.)



posted on Apr, 12 2012 @ 11:58 AM
link   

Originally posted by Jobeycool
If this was on a grand stage of federal government and supreme court this would be absurd to bann someone over guessing it is a hoax.


But it's not. It's an internet forum. Welcome to perspective.

And even in court you don't rely on "absolute" proof. Ever heard of a jury?



posted on Apr, 12 2012 @ 12:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by roadgravel
from the camera:

Exposure Time = 1/1062"
F Number = F2.4
ISO Speed Ratings = 64

That speed would freeze an object not moving very fast.
What exactly is that information saying? Speak to me as if I'm a kindergartner.



posted on Apr, 12 2012 @ 12:03 PM
link   

Originally posted by SkepticOverlord

Originally posted by OGOldGreg
Not one person has shown me this illeged iphone app. Whats it called so I can download it and see it myself?

UFO Camera GOLD

However, the UFO images available in the app come close, but aren't quite the same as seen in these photos.


Strange how in this post you imply suggest the photo is shopped/apped in some way, while in another post you declare that it was a thrown object. Apparently it's both? Way to run your site, fella.



posted on Apr, 12 2012 @ 12:03 PM
link   
reply to post by camus154
 


First don't place me in a "believer camp." I think its funny you like to put everyone in a box with a label.

I ask for proof - period.

And when it comes to banning members and calling them liars that bar for proof should be high ...

Mods and owners of this site can do whatever they want ... obviously, but don't think for a minute this doesn't hurt their credibility in the eyes of many here on ATS.

edit: I see now that you didn't direct that camp remark at me specifically ...

edit on 12-4-2012 by MegaMind because: (no reason given)

edit on 12-4-2012 by MegaMind because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 12 2012 @ 12:03 PM
link   
where is the proof that this is a hoax?

the iphone app explanation doesn't hold up, neither does the object thrown in the air explanation. it's a travesty that this has been moved here when there is no solid proof that this is a hoax.

more reasons if any more were needed not to post ufo photos on ats.



posted on Apr, 12 2012 @ 12:04 PM
link   
I have to agree with the staff on this one.

It screams hoax complete with sick puppy.

I have never seen the staff be quick to put something in the Hoax bin.

It's really the opposite...They want that "Proof" photo posted right here on ATS.

Besides, It's been on the board since yesterday.

Over 20 pages is a huge discussion. Just calling it like I see it.



posted on Apr, 12 2012 @ 12:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by Jobeycool
If this was on a grand stage of federal government and supreme court this would be absurd to bann someone over guessing it is a hoax.


this is not a court. however, since you keep bringing it up and are actually not aware of how the courts work....

in a court there is a jury (in many cases)....that jury bases their decision on the totally of circumstances...well they should....

then a verdict is reached based on that...

then a judge takes that verdict and a sentence is handed out.

this is what has happened here on this thread.....so your analogy is prob spot on...you just didn't realize it and had it a bit confused


ETA...this is not literal...just addressing the continual point of courts being brought up....
edit on April 12th 2012 by greeneyedleo because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 12 2012 @ 12:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by Druscilla
reply to post by jimmythehand
 


Considering that you have less posts than I do, I'd be compelled to say you have not been around long enough to see the ridiculous heights of outstanding stupidity that occurs.

Further, you're taking the comparison entirely too literally. Forensics by definition is an examination of whatever data can be collected from or derived from whatever evidence is on hand.

3 photos = evidence
forensics = oooo, check it out, there's EXIF data and there's glaring discrepancies that the OP has/will not explain, that give pretty strong indication that this while thing is an outright fabricated LIE.

Keep laughing if you want to. You're entitled to your own ignorance all you want.



I totally agree with you that there is some discrepancies with his evidence, however, there is no need to be condescending either, by all means expose him, but dont lower yourself to other people's standard of shenanigans, it's very unbecoming dont you think? I know your annoyed about all the attention some hoaxers get like billy meier, but dont belittle yourself by lowering yourself to their level, your bttr than that, dont you think?



posted on Apr, 12 2012 @ 12:07 PM
link   
reply to post by greeneyedleo
 


So where is the jury here? Who was the Judge? Who carried out the sentence?

I didn't get to vote on it being a hoax ...
edit on 12-4-2012 by MegaMind because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 12 2012 @ 12:09 PM
link   
That's a VW hubcap from a pre water cooled VW. Beetle/Bug, Karmen Ghia.. Thing.. Westie... Et cetera.
Can spot one a mile away.

... and as for the time descrepencies it was picked up and throw again????


edit on 12-4-2012 by BlastedCaddy because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 12 2012 @ 12:10 PM
link   
reply to post by camus154
 


I think, the problem is, that there seems to be no real consensus on what exactly is the smoking gun that proofs the whole story was just a hoax.

I mean - we've got the theory that the pictures show an object, that was generated by an "UFO app". We have the theory, that the pictures show an object that was tossed in the air and then photgraphed. And we've got the theory, that it was somehow photoshopped.

I've got some difficulties to imagine, that all three theories apply here, so...

To make it short: Considering, that several ATSers in this thread announced, that from now on they'd hesitate to post their own pictures of possible UFO sightings, I ask myself if the possibly hasty ban of the OP in the end does more damage to ATS than a definitive proven hoax would have done.



posted on Apr, 12 2012 @ 12:12 PM
link   
I don't think anyone could throw that object manually that high. It seems to be spinning like a frisbe but not fast enough to stabilize itself. It could be plastic also something that flew off a truck, rolled and bounce high in the air spinning. I don't think this person created this, just witnessed something that happened without seeing everything that was going on. The disk appears as if it may be about three to four feet in diameter. I don't think someone could throw that but give it to a teenager and they will get it flying.



new topics

top topics



 
74
<< 19  20  21    23  24  25 >>

log in

join