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: 34
74
<< 31  32  33    35  36  37 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 12 2012 @ 08:25 PM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 




posted on Apr, 12 2012 @ 08:28 PM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 



posted on Apr, 12 2012 @ 08:33 PM
link   
reply to post by weavty1
 

Simple, I used deductive reasoning to come to my opnion/conclusion.

1) Google the dude: "RickyVelveeta" - Returned search results tells us he has a band "Have You Heard"
2) Google even further and note that other results "RickyVelveeta" yield multiple forums/sites where he uses the same username and is a fan of European Futbol (Soccer) and seems to favor the Chelsea Futbol Club (Team), which is based out of Fulham, London.
3) Under his profile on 'FootyTube' a Fantasy-like Futbol website/fan page, his age is listed as 20yrs old. Take into account an average tolerance of a +/- 2 year age difference, due to common scripting/coding errors in the registry/database of common Internet 'member sites'.
4) Cross referencing the above results/information gathered, you find out his (OP's) name is REDACTED, born in Norfolk, England, now living in Nashville, TN
5) Now taking all of that information, you can find his Twitter, Facebook, MySpace, Instagram, etc... And primarily, Instagram, if many of you aren't familiar with, is THE most common 'photography' app for the iPhone.. And looking at his EXTENSIVE use of Instagram (seems like a daily routine for him), and the use of a few different 'photo editing' apps' filters, that I recognize from my OWN use, that he's used in some if his 'Instagram photography'...

I come to the conclusion of his likely use of an iPhone App, to produce the effects portrayed in the OP's photos, based on the above gathered information... ALL of which is publicly-available, for us to view..



That was awesome. Just goes to show what everyone else can find out about you, me and them from just posting a pic on the net. And we thought we had privacy. HA!. pshaaaaawwww

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



posted on Apr, 12 2012 @ 08:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by SaulGoodman


Okay, I understand the subject of UFOs is very important to you. It's important to a lot of people. And you're correct that people should be able to share their stories. And maybe skeptics are a little too harsh.

But don't you think you're might be being even the tiniest bit unreasonable. You are (at least it seems to be) saying that even known hoaxers should be taken at face value? You're saying that scientific analysis has no place in a discussion. It would stand to reason that if someone were spewing out false math, someone else would call them on it because math is not subjective. And as you can attest to there is always someone out there who wants to prove someone else wrong. It's not different with math just because it's taught in schools.

It's great to believe in people, but do you believe everybody all the time? You obviously don't, you obviously have your own skepticism. How is your skepticism more valid than others. If you allow yourself to be as blinded by what you have come to now as the truth, then you are the same as all the people who viciously decry you. You might be nicer about it, but it's the same animal.

The witchhunt attitude of skeptics can be troublesome, but so can the idea of blanket trust. If I made an MS paint drawing of a UFO and pasted it onto a photo you obviously wouldn't be fooled by it. But why can't you trust me that it was a UFO that looked like it was drawn in MS Paint? Why don't I get the benefit of the doubt.

There needs to be balance and there needs to be a point where both sides are able to admit they might be wrong. You adamantly on your side is the same as the opposing view adamantly on theirs.



Very cohesive and nonabrasive post. Thank you. Allow me to expound.
I am acutely sensitive in this particular area of interest. Not in a spineless way. Rather instinctively sensitive. But I know I'm not always right.

Truth is, I never got past the third page of this thread. So in all honesty, I have no idea where it went wrong or what it was that was emphatically telling of the OPs lack of honesty.

But in general, what may be proof to some might not be to others because we experience ourselves within our reality very differently.

So far in other threads, particularly mine, no one at any time has ever given me proof that my thread is wrong. They take their opinion and weave it into some 'truth machine'. As if that's not sad enough I then I have Mods chiming in and the lynching is on.

I understand mods are members first. At least I understand that's the rule but as I see it: if you were convicted of a crime that you didn't do and appeared in front of 12 members of the jury....you MIGHT get a fair shake. But if the Judge (mods in this instance) keep interrupting saying "Oh I don't believe what you're saying" that is greatly going to influence and perhaps, persuade the jury in the wrong direction. After all, it's only an opinion. And although I realize this is not a court case, it's the same imbalance.

I have no desire to persuade anyone of my opinions. But that is not the case on the opposite end. I am simply offering threads for consideration with an open mind. I never mock anyone for having a different opinion. But again, that is not always reciprocated on the other end.

Some of the opposition start off with their grievances about me. Not my posts. And I understand skepticism (which verges on hostility) but I don't understand the attacks.

Again, until PROVEN otherwise----I start off believing everyone. Why not? I have a very good gauge for truthfulness. But here again, we're dealing mostly and mainly with videos and photos in a 2D world.
I cannot interview the subject in question so like I said, I start off with an open mind which means, I am accepting of what they're saying or showing. That is the way it SHOULD be.

Many of the hostile posts add zero value to the thread except to incite other people to attack. And that's what I keep finding here lately.

I will not stop posting UFO threads. I love the subject. And I will never stop having an opinion. And once again, it's not that I don't like people not agreeing with me (I'm not THAT unreasonable) rather, I don't like the TONE in which they are expressing it in.



posted on Apr, 12 2012 @ 08:59 PM
link   

Originally posted by Witness2008
reply to post by Human_Alien
 


Sorry to say that my mind was made up for me on this thread, I was not thinking one way or another, however through reading I wish I had been given the chance to make up my own mind.. As someone searching for similar experiences as I, I come to places like this. The last couple of years here have left me cold. I rarely post in these types of threads any more simply because I hate reading the thoughtless ridicule that pours out of some members.

I certainly could relate to the OP and the possible ill effects on his dog. I can also relate to his wonderment of how ATS would treat his pics and experience. It seems to me from the continued sleuthing of these photos the truth has yet to be found.


I apologize for not quite understanding but your mind was made up, which way? That he was hoaxing?

I have no desire to even read this thread now although I am very curious what more was said by the OP.
Can you imagine if he is telling the truth though? This is an example of what 'experiencer' (I use that term to cover a wider area of this realm) go through all the time.

The truth will be known soon enough



posted on Apr, 12 2012 @ 09:16 PM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 



posted on Apr, 12 2012 @ 09:18 PM
link   
Maybe it's time this thread was closed. Boy has it digressed into a mud slinging competition.



posted on Apr, 12 2012 @ 09:24 PM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 



posted on Apr, 12 2012 @ 09:26 PM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 



posted on Apr, 12 2012 @ 09:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by bcccl
it's almost as if the aim of these posters is to destroy the desire to share these experiences rather than seek the truth. if that is the case, they are doing an excellent job.


i thought they were seeking the truth. hence the 'csi' job on the photo's
and looks like they did an outstanding job now does'nt it??



posted on Apr, 12 2012 @ 09:29 PM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 



posted on Apr, 12 2012 @ 09:39 PM
link   
Well, if people want answers, why not talk to the op directly Here

Op's twitter account.
edit on 12-4-2012 by amongus because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 12 2012 @ 09:46 PM
link   
reply to post by amongus
 


Mud will be slung - it's part of going out onto the field to begin with. I just bring a roll of paper towels for cleanup, and they can let it fly!


I did some rough calculations of the angular diameter in the various shots, and came up with:

"object1" - 0.937 degree

"object2" - 0.766 degree

"object3" - 1.1 degrees.

I used the figure of elevenaugust of a 43.9 degree field of view laterally in the photos. I determined the angular diameter using d= SQRT((x^2)+(y^2)) since none of the images had the object perfectly level for a straightforward measure of pixels, then took the figures produced by that (in pixels) and divided by the width of the photos (again in pixels) them multiplied the result by the 43.9 degree FOV figure to get results in degrees.

Then I used d = D(sin(theta)) to compute minimum and maximum possible diameters.

Using minimum and maximum distances of 15m (distance to the adjacent roof peak on the right) and 152m (distance to the center of the communications tower) respectively, I get a minimum size of 20 cm (about 8 inches) and a maximum size of 2.91m (about 9.57 feet). I'm betting on a diameter of around 28cm/ 11 inches, or slightly larger.

Someone else needs to check my math on that, though.




edit on 2012/4/12 by nenothtu because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 12 2012 @ 09:55 PM
link   
I dont know if you all remember a thread on here where
the topic was about a text based lie detector, I tend to use
it as my second opinion. So far it hasn't failed me.

Using my phone to scan texts may be giving me mixed
results due to only being able to copy and paste the text
that fits my screen. The first half of the OP (before the pics)
that I scanned returned as normal (truthful?). The rest of the
OP that was scanned had signs of deception..

If anyone wants to copy and paste the OP or anything else
Text based then heres the Link



posted on Apr, 12 2012 @ 10:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by nenothtu
reply to post by amongus
 


Mud will be slung - it's part of going out onto the field to begin with. I just bring a roll of paper towels for cleanup, and they can let it fly!


I did some rough calculations of the angular diameter in the various shots, and came up with:

"object1" - 0.937 degree

"object2" - 0.766 degree

"object3" - 1.1 degrees.

I used the figure of elevenaugust of a 43.9 degree field of view laterally in the photos. I determined the angular diameter using d= SQRT((x^2)+(y^2)) since none of the images had the object perfectly level for a straightforward measure of pixels, then took the figures produced by that (in pixels) and divided by the width of the photos (again in pixels) them multiplied the result by the 43.9 degree FOV figure to get results in degrees.

Then I used d = D(sin(theta)) to compute minimum and maximum possible diameters.

Using minimum and maximum distances of 15m (distance to the adjacent roof peak on the right) and 152m (distance to the center of the communications tower) respectively, I get a minimum size of 20 cm (about 8 inches) and a maximum size of 2.91m (about 9.57 feet). I'm betting on a diameter of around 28cm/ 11 inches, or slightly larger.

Someone else needs to check my math on that, though.




edit on 2012/4/12 by nenothtu because: (no reason given)


Nice.

This is the way this thread should be handled with nothing more than an analysis of the evidence at hand without all the name calling and condescension. Including calls of hoax. When level heads have given sound analysis each person reading can make up their own mind.

Your earlier ideas of humidity and clarity of the object really help explain the oddness of the photo - namely it appears too clearly to be a distant object. I thought about airshows I have been to and how planes flying at some distance become greyed out due to humidity. Even though the humidity was low in the photo the tower provides a reference point.
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 @ 10:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by strafgod
I dont know if you all remember a thread on here where
the topic was about a text based lie detector, I tend to use
it as my second opinion. So far it hasn't failed me.

Using my phone to scan texts may be giving me mixed
results due to only being able to copy and paste the text
that fits my screen. The first half of the OP (before the pics)
that I scanned returned as normal (truthful?). The rest of the
OP that was scanned had signs of deception..

If anyone wants to copy and paste the OP or anything else
Text based then heres the Link




I just copied my own post (from above) into that box and it read deceptive!
I wasn't telling a story. I was answering a post.

So much for reliability!!!



posted on Apr, 12 2012 @ 10:05 PM
link   
Reply to post by Human_Alien
 


I never said it was reliable.



I have no desire to even read this thread now


Maybe that qoute is what gave you a deceptive result?

Ill trust this scanner as much as I will of the gullible and
hoax screaming member's opinions.
 
Posted Via ATS Mobile: m.abovetopsecret.com
 


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



posted on Apr, 12 2012 @ 10:09 PM
link   
reply to post by strafgod
 




Originally posted by camus154
reply to post by squidboy
 


I really dig your open mindedness, man. It's groovy.

I really applaud your ability to reenact the scenario just so, just for the purpose of, you know, getting closer to the truth and all, even if nothing will come of it.

Far out, man. You are the harbinger of the truth, dude. Your dedication to an anti-climatic done deal is second to none. Even though no one cares and absolutely no accolades will ever come to you, still you strive on in your merciless reconstruction of what may or may not have been the truth.

Far out, man. I salute you. Budweiser salutes you. ATS salutes you. Even if your wife is ready to divorce you for being too "weird", we here recognize and appreciate the sacrifices you've made.

All in the name of truth, man. All for truth. Because even though the mods have already ruled and handed out justice, you weren't ready to give up, man. You weren't satiated. You still believed there was a story to tell.

You speak for those who cannot speak. You speak for the slighted, the injusticeced, the insulted. You speak for little men everywhere, be they short of intellect [snip]

You, sir, are a hero.




edit on 12-4-2012 by camus154 because: (no reason given)

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


funny that ^^

copy and paste here



this is fun ...

I think it works good

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



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


Thanks for responding. You're right that people can be way too harsh. When it concerns you, I wouldn't take it too personally. The internet breeds a lot of prankster and those pranks make a lot of people frustrated. For disclosure, my opinions on most of the strange things people claim to experience on here range from "no opinion" to "most likely not real." And that feeling of "Why are people giving me crap for this?" has a flip-side in "Why are people indulging this." I haven't read any of your threads, so I'm not referring to any of those, but we get a lot of messiahs around and there are always a few who buy into it. That's their right, but both sides on almost every argument here have that thought of, "Why can no one see beyond what they're pre-disposed to?

I'm glad I understand the other side from your point of view a little better though.



Originally posted by amongus
Well, if people want answers, why not talk to the op directly Here

Op's twitter account.
edit on 12-4-2012 by amongus because: (no reason given)


We are really just putting it all out there about this guy, huh? I hope not a lot of people bother him, but it is kind of interesting to not that while he mentions "Zeta Riticuli" in his Twitter description thing, he didn't bother to mention this incident. Or his sick dog. And he updated his twitter twice today. Just a curious thing.



posted on Apr, 12 2012 @ 10:15 PM
link   
Reply to post by MegaMind
 


Lol first time ive seen that result. Hahaha


 
Posted Via ATS Mobile: m.abovetopsecret.com
 




top topics



 
74
<< 31  32  33    35  36  37 >>

log in

join