Aerial Phenomena Research Team recruits hoaxer

page: 4
18
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join

posted on Apr, 24 2012 @ 09:17 AM
link   
reply to post by Amaeus
 



I am just trying to give the benefit of the doubt here.


Antonio Paris has an account here. Since he has not returned to explain himself, it is clear that he and his Aerial Phenomena Investigations Team are trying to "stonewall" the affair. Their silence is the strongest proof yet, right Smokingman?
edit on 24-4-2012 by DJW001 because: (no reason given)




posted on Apr, 24 2012 @ 09:36 AM
link   

Originally posted by DJW001
It is perfectly real hotel lobby footage stolen from Sheraton.

Not only stolen from Sheraton, but possibility releasing the footage is against the law.

From the website Office of the Privacy Commissioner of Canada.

Listed under the Q & A portion of Guidelines for Overt Video Surveillance in the Private Sector

Q. What are our responsibilities with regard to recorded images?

A.
The recorded images must be stored in a secure location, and access should be granted only to a limited number of authorized individuals.

Individuals have the right to access images relating to them. When disclosing recordings to individuals who appear in them, the organization must ensure that identifying information about any other individuals on the recording is not revealed. This can be done through technologies that mask identity.

Any disclosure of video surveillance recordings outside the organization should be justified and documented.

Recordings should only be kept as long as necessary to fulfill the purpose of the video surveillance. Recordings no longer required should be destroyed.

Organizations must ensure that the destruction is secure.
www.priv.gc.ca

Bolding mine. I do not think this story of MiB is "documented" (no date given for the story) and certainly releasing the footage is no where near "justified".

OiO



posted on Apr, 24 2012 @ 09:57 AM
link   

Originally posted by OneisOne

Originally posted by DJW001
It is perfectly real hotel lobby footage stolen from Sheraton.

Not only stolen from Sheraton, but possibility releasing the footage is against the law.

From the website Office of the Privacy Commissioner of Canada.

Listed under the Q & A portion of Guidelines for Overt Video Surveillance in the Private Sector

Q. What are our responsibilities with regard to recorded images?

A.
The recorded images must be stored in a secure location, and access should be granted only to a limited number of authorized individuals.

Individuals have the right to access images relating to them. When disclosing recordings to individuals who appear in them, the organization must ensure that identifying information about any other individuals on the recording is not revealed. This can be done through technologies that mask identity.

Any disclosure of video surveillance recordings outside the organization should be justified and documented.

Recordings should only be kept as long as necessary to fulfill the purpose of the video surveillance. Recordings no longer required should be destroyed.

Organizations must ensure that the destruction is secure.
www.priv.gc.ca

Bolding mine. I do not think this story of MiB is "documented" (no date given for the story) and certainly releasing the footage is no where near "justified".

OiO


So this very well could get people fired and/or charged?! Then I conclude there very well may be a chance that the two individuals walking in the clothing that appears to be black may have given consent to it being released.

Otherwise the Sheraton or whatever they are now may get wind of said video that is out on the internet showing visitors of the hotel and cause a problem.

Which would be more than a bad employee it would also mean that guests are not safe from ridicule or being smeared across the internet as being some demonic alien evil force!

Well Ill never stay at any of these hotels nor the new name that they changed it to since this is the actions I can expect from employees when I wear a black suit due to being there to visit my wife's family and to renew her visas!

(see the bad press it could cause) This may be why the full tape WONT come out. Im beginning to wonder if they even know that their security videos are out there on the net.
edit on 24-4-2012 by Snakedoctorjw because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 24 2012 @ 10:20 AM
link   

Originally posted by Snakedoctorjw

So this very well could get people fired and/or charged?! Then I conclude there very well may be a chance that the two individuals walking in the clothing that appears to be black may have given consent to it being released.

But you see under the law everyone in that video would have had to given consent for the footage to be released, not just the 'men in black'.

OiO



posted on Apr, 24 2012 @ 10:33 AM
link   
reply to post by OneisOne
 



Not only stolen from Sheraton, but possibility releasing the footage is against the law.


Shane Sovar will finally get to see what real G-Men look like.



posted on Apr, 24 2012 @ 10:53 AM
link   
post removed because the user has no concept of manners

Click here for more information.



posted on Apr, 24 2012 @ 11:02 AM
link   
post removed because the user has no concept of manners

Click here for more information.



posted on Apr, 24 2012 @ 11:03 AM
link   
Ok, so I had a read of DJW001's evidence that this is a hoax, but to be honest I think it's spread out over so many posts that it's pretty confusing. At first I thought it was an attempt to discredit something that was simply unknown and was confused as to why the thread got locked, but then when I took the time to read through, one thing stood out more than anything else : the UFO in one report was 25 or so metres(?) wide, then it'd grown to 250ft in another. I mean how does that make any sense? That alone has pretty much done it for me. I wonder if API can explain that one? Or maybe Anunaki can?

But there's also several other points, one of which is the dates of the paper reports that to be honest were a bit confusing to take in, (maybe I was just tired when I last read through.) and is maybe why people like Anunaki are still not convinced.

So in an effort to gather the evidence easily so that people can understand this better, is there any way someone can list the points that make it a hoax in one or two sentences each? So it's simpler to understand. Because if that can be done we might be able to get this settled more easily and clear up any lingering confusion.
edit on 24-4-2012 by robhines because: added



posted on Apr, 24 2012 @ 12:21 PM
link   
reply to post by robhines
 



So in an effort to gather the evidence easily so that people can understand this better, is there any way someone can list the points that make it a hoax in one or two sentences each? So it's simpler to understand. Because if that can be done we might be able to get this settled more easily and clear up any lingering confusion


With pleasure. First, there is nothing unusual in this surveillance video. The two men who walk in are not floating, they do not have glowing red eyes or are semi-transparent. For whatever reason they just happen to be wearing black. (I know some of you believe in aliens, but not Jews.) In this sense, this footage is not fake or a hoax. It's just random traffic in a hotel lobby.

What makes this a hoax is the ridiculous, hysterical story that the only witness tells in the voice over. All of the details come from one person, and one person only. No-one else corroborates this story. Even Aerial Phenomena Investigations admits this in their report:


• ADDITIONAL WITNESSES: WITNESS-2, who wishes not to cooperated [sic] or assist in this investigation...

The MIB account was not first-hand, but rather specific information made known to the WITNESS by accounts from at least two hotel personnel who interacted with!the MIB on hotel premises. Via e-mail, Investigator contacted the hotel Security Manager who gave WITNESS a copy of the surveillance video of the MIB entering the hotel lobby In the e-mail he erroneously thought the MIB incident was “around Halloween” and stated “I think most employees thought it was just a Halloween prank." Although I did find it odd, I really did not give it much thought at the time.” The Security Manager, in a subsequent e-mail, admitted his time frame was incorrect but did not give an account as to why he thought hotel personnel had considered it “just a Halloween prank”.


www.aerial-phenomenon.org...

In other words, the "Investigator" did not talk to anyone who actually saw the "Men In Black!" The WITNESS was the hotel manager, Shane Sovar. The entire story rests on his credibility and his alone. Even the "Investigator" eventually noticed that the timing of the story was wrong. Sovar got so caught up in his description of their weirdness that he excitedly added the "Halloween prank" detail. The story is confused, inconsistent and hyperbolic. Sovar can purportedly remember fine details of what others told him, but got confused by things like dates.

An objective report would have made liberal use of words like "allegedly" and "claims," but that is another story. I will happily critique Aerial Phenomena Investigations Team reports later.

To return to the point: it is all Sovar's story, so his credibility is key. He has confused key details in earlier reports. He claims to have filed his October 14 report because he read about others seeing the same thing in the paper. Unfortunately, he got the date mixed up on that, too. And he had to invent a second, similar sighting closer to Halloween to cover up his mistake, but he not only could not remember the date of the alleged sighting, but he contradicted himself when he described what direction it was traveling. The size of the object was also inconsistent between the first report with Vike and the report he later filed with Aerial Phenomena Investigations. Stealing a hotel security tape doesn't do much for his credibility, either.
edit on 24-4-2012 by DJW001 because: (no reason given)
edit on 24-4-2012 by DJW001 because: (no reason given)
edit on 24-4-2012 by DJW001 because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 24 2012 @ 12:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by DJW001

With pleasure. First, there is nothing unusual in this surveillance video. The two men who walk in are not floating, they do not have glowing red eyes or are semi-transparent. For whatever reason they just happen to be wearing black. (I know some of you believe in aliens, but not Jews.)


rofl


Originally posted by DJW001
In this sense, this footage is not fake or a hoax. It's just random traffic in a hotel lobby.

What makes this a hoax is the ridiculous, hysterical story that the only witness tells in the voice over. All of the details come from one person, and one person only. No-one else corroborates this story. Even Aerial Phenomena Investigations admits this in their report:

To return to the point: it is all Sovar's story, so his credibility is key.


Not entirely. Sovar's credibility is inherently tied to those who have supported that neither he nor his story is a hoax.

Add the Supportees to the Supported and Sovar is buried in a sea of incredulity. {ahem}

edit on 24-4-2012 by AlchemicalBinoculars because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 24 2012 @ 01:06 PM
link   
reply to post by DJW001
 


Thanks! That makes things quite a bit clearer, and when you add that API haven't returned here to debate/explain more about any of these points, it kind of speaks for itself I guess.

To be honest, from the off I wondered why MIB's would walk ino a hotel with cameras anyway. Doesn't exactly give much confidence that it's real, especially when you realise how little of them has ever been seen at all.



posted on Apr, 24 2012 @ 01:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by AlchemicalBinoculars
post removed because the user has no concept of manners

Click here for more information.




Huh its blocked out lol


Thank you DWJ for that break down.



posted on Apr, 24 2012 @ 03:29 PM
link   
reply to post by DJW001
 


Nice work putting this together. Some of us are paying attention even if it does not seem like anyone is.

It's good to do these follow up posts as the truth tends to get lost in chaos.

I don't have much to add and it appears you have clearly laid out your evidence. Keep denying ignorance



posted on Apr, 24 2012 @ 07:05 PM
link   

Originally posted by Snakedoctorjw

Originally posted by AlchemicalBinoculars
post removed because the user has no concept of manners

Click here for more information.




Huh its blocked out lol


Thank you DWJ for that break down.


A joke turned bad here sorry using an OLD tablet since my hard drive failed earlier! couldn't type it out write!
edit on 24-4-2012 by Snakedoctorjw because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 25 2012 @ 03:03 AM
link   
It's a HOAX?!
WHA!!!?!?!

(Sarcasm)



posted on Apr, 25 2012 @ 08:25 AM
link   

Originally posted by DJW001
The two men who walk in are not floating

They do not float, but they seem to walk quite differently, their skin looks pale, they seem to be tall like Tall Whites as reported www.bibliotecapleyades.net...

Some stand more than 8 feet tall, run 40 mph and live 800 years. They speak like a dog barking or a bird chirping, write similar to Egyptian hieroglyphics and have learned English quite easily. They have large blue eyes that wrap part way around their heads, small noses and tiny ears pressed tight to their scalps. Their thumbs are small with four long slender fingers and two claw-like appendages instead of fingernails. They all have thin, straight blond hair, usually worn short and the women can be distinguished by a feminine looking short cut. Their hips are shaped liked ours, but they walk quite differently since they are used to a stronger gravity pull. As previously mentioned, the Tall Whites can grow to be over 7 feet tall. However, most the adults in the first half of their lives usually range in size from 5’10 to 6’5”.



, they do not have glowing red eyes or are semi-transparent.

*Facepalm* Of course the report does not state anything about red glowing eyes, geez, don't you know about the description of their eyes? Do you really know about the case at all? I even posted the report about the description of their eyes right here on this thread on Page 3 www.abovetopsecret.com... " reply posted on 24-4-2012 @ 05:39 AM by Anunaki10", and now you suddenly shout about glowing red eyes??? You don't even bother to follow what's going on here...

Geez, is it really necessary to repeat this to you? Obviously it is... *Sigh* All right here we go again (unbelievable), let me repeat to you what i presented on Page 3 this thread... ufonewsheadlines.wordpress.com...

There's a couple of really strange looking men that were here and they kinda freaked everybody out, and they were asking questions about you. And of course now I'm getting a little bit nervous and I'm like >>what are you talking about?>well they were,>I don't know how to describe them but they were extremely odd looking. They were the exact same height. They were wearing the exact same clothes and had the exact same faces, like they were twins.>they were wearing black suits. Black trench coats. They were wearing like the old fashioned fedora hats. They had an extre mely extremely pale skin>they came in and asked for you.>I'm sorry he's actually not working today.>I heard that you heard there were some men looking for you.>they asked a few questions about you and they said strange things that I didn't understand. They were talking about governments, and conspiracies, and none of it made any sense to me.>But they were very, very scary.>they had no eyebrows, no eyelashes, nothing! Their hair looked like they had a wig on. Like it was attached to their hat. Like it wasn't even real!>And mysterious thing, their eyes were so big and so blue, that they almost hypnotized me a little bit.>You're going to think I'm crazy when I tell you this, but I swear they knew what I was thinking.>these men, they didn't blink. Not once did I see them blink.



posted on Apr, 25 2012 @ 09:57 AM
link   

Originally posted by robhines
To be honest, from the off I wondered why MIB's would walk ino a hotel with cameras anyway.

Maybe the "MIB" dudes forgot all about the camera? Good question...



posted on Apr, 25 2012 @ 01:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by Blaine91555
reply to post by DJW001
 


Nice work putting this together. Some of us are paying attention even if it does not seem like anyone is.

It's good to do these follow up posts as the truth tends to get lost in chaos.

I don't have much to add and it appears you have clearly laid out your evidence. Keep denying ignorance


Secomd this. DJW001 did a superlative job.

The only folks left with any contradicting comments on this matter are the jelly-brained.



posted on Apr, 25 2012 @ 01:57 PM
link   
reply to post by AlchemicalBinoculars
 


I don't see it. Their stories aren't exact. So what. The OP basically just called someone a liar that he doesn't know for a fact is, a liar. I have read the "evidence" he has presented, but he has not provided proof. He makes his case based on his deductions and he explains why he thinks that way, but he can't explain why he is correct. He has to admit at some point he doesn't have a clue, he has an opinion.

I don't get the fun in hanging out only to debunk. The OP is a debunker, that's all he does. Even Cigarette Man
called the OP out on his own version of HIS opinion not checking out. Should we assume he is a hoaxer? no. Though I can deduce for myself that he is a bored debunker.

I would sooner put faith in my ASSUMPTIONS. Since even the OP said the video is not hoaxed. He said the story was bunk. OK. So going off that, you just assume the worse about a person you never met.

It is funny who jumps on the " let's go ape on this or that subject without any PROOF". Evidence no matter how vague is enough to declare fact or fiction. All the way from home.
Well hooray. You have all the answers don't you.

edit on 25-4-2012 by BIHOTZ because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 25 2012 @ 03:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by BIHOTZ
reply to post by AlchemicalBinoculars
 


I don't see it. Their stories aren't exact. So what.


After reading your post, I am positive that you are telling the truth.

You missed the absolutes in this thread entirely.





new topics
top topics
 
18
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join