Debunk this documentary. You can´t. ET Contact DOES occur.

Not to mention that she has used different cameras and borrowed ones off those who came, including the Unsolved Mystery Crew's camera, and has had them preloaded and given to her to use, then taken back to the labs to be processed with the same results.

Also if you read it, the family ignored her and didn't go out to see with her. They were blocked, except her daughter years and years later did, and guess what, she had a sighting. And others who came also had sightings.

Originally posted by sled735
reply to post by flexy123

 

I GIVE UP!!!

All those questions you asked were answered in the videos!
The first time she saw it was at 4:00 in the afternoon, not nighttime.
Orbs and dust particles can be easily distinguished using certain tests by professionals.
A visitor that came by one day saw the lights too....
And, I don't think they made "modern" cameras back in the 1950's... however, she did use 3 different types of cameras that were "modern" at that time, and got the same thing on all three.

Go back and watch ALL the videos again. I think you missed a few things.

edit on 6/16/2012 by sled735 because: addition to comment

edit on 6/16/2012 by sled735 because: (no reason given)

edit on 6/16/2012 by sled735 because: (no reason given)

You obviously only wanna hear what you want to hear. Good, if THE WORD of someone has more value to you than looking at it with common sense - so be it.

That lady can tell you or me what she wants. I said she has 30.000ft of film, and no where remotely on this film is anything more than "lights"...i am not interested whether she SAYS she "saw them in daylight once".... i want facts and not stories.

Orbs and dust particles can be easily distinguished - now tell me what made the (CLEARLY!) out of focus particles in the movie "orbs" or "beings" and NOT dust particles? What attributes would you see in the floating dusk particles making those "beings" instead? You must have a fantastic fantasy because indeed they looked and moved EXACTLY like dust particles.

Also..she had a chance since the 80s already to get a NON FILM video camera, 30 years gone by already where 8mm is already hopefully outdated. Obviously, in the 3 decades she is filming she had plenty, plenty of time to get a better camera...HECK...it would be perfect because she could even more prove the validity of heir claims/observations. What could be better than proving what she claims to see with modern equipment? Again..she doesn't and never did in the past decades because she KNOWS that what she does is only possible with an old-style film camera.

Originally posted by Unity_99
Not to mention that she has used different cameras and borrowed ones off those who came, including the Unsolved Mystery Crew's camera, and has had them preloaded and given to her to use, then taken back to the labs to be processed with the same results.

Also if you read it, the family ignored her and didn't go out to see with her. They were blocked, except her daughter years and years later did, and guess what, she had a sighting. And others who came also had sightings.

edit on 16-6-2012 by Unity_99 because: (no reason given)

To me this sounded very much that Hynek and others gave her some different cameras, but no one SAW her doing the actually filming,

I guess you would look pretty dumb-founded if you find out it's something very simple as blocking the reel to get such exposures......or simply interrupting battery power with the shutter open. She could do that with any other, similar camera. Open the side, stop reel with finger...and let one frame expose for a longer time. (Another, simple way would be to switch the camera off but finding a way so the shutter stays open).

And what you call "sighting", sorry to disappoint you, it's shapeless lights on a black background. Lights which refuse to be anything else than *lights*. This is all it takes to convince you of alien life, light-beings and whatever...some lights?

reply to post by flexy123


People were there with her, her daughter, and various guests. And they saw it too. Didn't you read any of the links or posts? Just asking. I call this, clutching at straws.

Seems the Vids don't work any more! Anyone got any alternative links???

Thanks in advance!

Albert.

reply to post by albertfothergill


I think they shut down the thread due to all the trolling!

No its not the thread, but certain people flagged the videos. Exopolitics offers them however.

www.exopolitics.org.uk...

www.exopolitics.org.uk...

There it is.

It seems someone is being bought off in my opinion. Its like a case of the electric batteries, the ones that pulled a big load highway speed, they were bought off and then buried. That is how I see this as a possibility, but do hope I'm wrong. That someone may have gotten to him.

Is their a new link to the video, it seems to be deleted... I gues the CIA is hard at work!

this case is 30 years old, there are videos and stories about it all over the web and in the archives if you look around. Pretty silly idea the cia would waste time deleting a youtube video, still leaves 900 other sites open where you can read about this case.

Originally posted by C0LDBL00D
Is their a new link to the video, it seems to be deleted... I gues the CIA is hard at work!

The links are in the post above yours.

Here's another video:

youtu.be...

interesting. watch it.we have the same kind of movement here (36:00)



www.youtube.com...#!

Originally posted by kauskau
interesting. watch it.we have the same kind of movement here (36:00)



www.youtube.com...#!

edit on 20-6-2012 by kauskau because: (no reason given)

Well! Here's the proof using a "modern" camera for all you skeptics on the thread!


Thanks for posting this video, Kauskau!

Originally posted by Unity_99
This is a very real case, and very well researched. When the research team was there interviewing the daughter who finally, after all those years, went out to witness with her mother, the ufo made an appearance,

But yet not one researcher has made his own photograph of this event because as it is said it can only be seen with the old lady's 8mm camera. But still ,then again , there is this claim that entire research teams have seen it.


I admit , the last time i looked into this case was when it first popped up but it did not last long before i concluded for myself that i do not believe this case. I'm also a bit rusty on the details so how was it again?

?She could only record it with her special 8mm camera and no one could see it with the bare eye or it could only be recorded with the woman's 8mm camera and everyone could see it nonetheless?! But again of course ,not be recorded by anything other hen her trusty old 8mm camera , no one else's camera would do.

i seriously do not remember but i do remember finding that part of the story just to evident of bs being sold on their tourist cash shop website (do they still sell T-shirts and caps on there?)

reply to post by Djack


What you said wasnt true. And the videos and other links have been added, not to mention that from time to time I repeat a few facts when posts like this build up from people who havent watched the videos or thread or checked out the links.

But others that came also were witnesses to the lights/crafts, as her daughter was. And she used several cameras and borrowed the cameras of anyoen who showed up including the camera off of the Unsolved Mystery Team and same results, including them giving her cameras, preloaded with film and developign them at the labs.

But others witnessed the lights/crafts too.

This has been linked, is in the videos and posted numerously yet posts like this still are steady from those who havent read the thread.

And this post is certainly good to begin with:


www.abovetopsecret.com...

OK I watched it and how does it differ from any other sighting of any other man? That you have it on camera? There has been other evident cases of lights recorded by others, I do not see this any different or more credible than others.

The lady looks like any other 'abductee', sorry, this does look something may be happening but I cannot call this movie any more special than the other one.

Oh and something important she quoted from Hynek, the most useful of the entire film:

One needs to stay away from lunatics and such people
[color=#01BDFE]
And I continue:
away from people who hear or see out of the ordinary things (which some health problems cause), conspiracy places (no one would ever take you seriously if you visited a conspiracy forum too much), abductees, contactees, religious people.

I think being in contact with such is really putting dirt and a bad name on one who prefers to stay away from any wild claims. I think I will make a break.

reply to post by kauskau

Thank you, kauskau, for posting another documentary I hadn't seen: "Investigation X: UFO Outbreak" (reposted here).

The only thing I wish they had done, is to find out the settings people had on their cameras, including the professional and compare. Now, someone may have changed it, so it wouldn't be "proof" of any kind. However, we don't know how long the exposure had to be for the light streaks to occur. And I would guess most people don't keep their camera on 4 second exposure times, as it would mess up their pictures, but we just don't have that information.

If the professional photographer's camera was set on a very long exposure for his "streaks" picture (4 seconds was the max exposure) and the original photos of the object were shot with a shorter exposure time, then that could prove to make the object even more mysterious and different from the airplanes the professional took pictures of, I would think. (Distance from the object would matter as well, of course, which I don't know how they dealt with.)

It was interesting that the quality/color of the light is what made it not look like airplanes or other phenomena to the photographer - on the video that he tried to replicate as well. The photographer said he didn't know what the object could be - that, along with the radar data...very very interesting. I encourage others to watch this one too!

Anyway - cool! I appreciate how this adds to the discussion regarding the "streaking" photos.

peace,
AB