posted on Sep, 18 2013 @ 02:31 AM
I am not longer going to read or responde to Zetarediculan (mispelled BTW) or Freelance Zanarchist
The reason why is because they are not contributing any data to the thread and are not interested in having a serious conversation.
Unfortunately, I will continue to make my points. People are not as dumb as you think, they can read the last few posts and see who's contributing and
wanting a serious conversation. The only thing you are contributing is the perpetuation of a hoax. I laid out a hoax scenario that fits rather well
and could be easily accomplished by just about anyone. Thats a pretty good contribution and I haven't seen your response to that.
Whenever their points are shot down they simply change topic and try again with something else.
That is not so. People can read and are not susceptible to your Jedi mind tricks. At no time have I changed the topic.
I get the feeling that I am making you nervous because I do want to stay on topic with these 2 points:
1. The 21 minute gap in the footage going from what looks like a model shot inside to the outside shot of the lights. Why is there such a big gap in
the footage? Since the night time shots have been easily recreated with a small model, it fits with the hoax scenario that there would be a gap
precisely at that point which would allow for the transition to the outside day light shots.
You have not responded to or even "shot down" this point except to say that lights are not a model. That is a diversionary tactic as is your
suggestion that I am not staying on topic, being serious and that my points are being shot down.
2. Please provide your sources to your claim that Maccabee said this was not hoax. Please provide some evidence that Jeff Ritzman said this wasn't a
hoax. If you can't, can you elaborate on what they said? This is very important.
You have not responded to this serious request.
Here is your post:
reply to post by ZetaRediculian
I agree with Dr. Bruce Maccabee that this is not a hoax.
It may be something else of course because 90% of ufos can be identified, but not a hoax.
And BTW Jeff Ritzmann who is ATS image analyst also thinks it is NOT A HOAX and he talked about this on his weekly radio show. Now Jeff feels it needs
more investigation but he again he says he thinks its not a hoax.
Both of these comments are easily checked but I would like your response first.
3. What night time footage clearly shows that it is over the sea? It just doesn't add up that there is 26 days of footage but no clear evidence of the
night shots being over the sea or even flying. Of the 26 days, What footage is the best footage to show movement and that its flying?
You have never responded to this question.
edit on 18-9-2013 by ZetaRediculian because: (no reason given)