Dr Jonthan Reed Demonstrates Alien Technology Live

reply to post by oaf21


G'day again oaf21

Well.....I've watched it.

You know, Reed.....

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/e2612cfc0ef1.jpg[/atsimg]

.....reminds me of this guy.....

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/59fafe2f42a7.jpg[/atsimg]

"Never fear..... Reed is here!"

reply to post by free_spirit


Thank you, freespirit. After viewing the samples you posted I'm convinced that whatever electro magnetic interference was seen on Reed's video is real. This does not, however, prove that he was transported elsewhere, as the video seems to demonstrate.

The audience applause does sound a bit canned but a good way to prove/disprove the authenticity of that would be to find out if this were a live broadcast on Jaime Maussan's show and if so, have one of the audiences members verify it.

[edit on 5-2-2010 by NightVision]

reply to post by NightVision
C'mon NightVision...for the love of Dave Harris and Di' Anno?! Reed is a total BS merchant. IIRC the UFOwatchdog 'Hall of Shame' charts his track record of lies and hoaxes. He's a genuine pathological liar. 'Oh God of Earth and altar bow down and hear my cry...'

EDIT to add...The Chuckle Brothers......

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/9c3d46c7c75f.jpg[/atsimg]



[edit on 5-2-2010 by Kandinsky]

reply to post by Maybe...maybe not


Hahahahaha! That's way too funny!

Thanks man! =)

reply to post by oaf21


G'day again.....

Have you read this material regarding Reed / Rutter?

www.ufowatchdog.com...

www.ufowatchdog.com...

Some members debate the accuracy of ufowatchdog's work.

It appears to hang together quite well as far as I'm concerned.

Kind regards
Maybe...maybe not

reply to post by Maybe...maybe not


You are going to get a bunch of crap from the dr.reed open skulled believer fan boys for posting that. They will make up every excuse in the book to explain why is hoaxed stuff though proven to be a hoax is not a hoax and why he is calling himself a doctor when all he is is a bad photographer.

It appears to hang together quite well as far as I'm concerned.

UFOwatchdog holds up in a court of law, that is enough for me.

[edit on 5-2-2010 by zaiger]

Originally posted by Kandinsky
C'mon NightVision...for the love of Dave Harris and Di' Anno?! Reed is a total BS merchant. IIRC the UFOwatchdog 'Hall of Shame' charts his track record of lies and hoaxes. He's a genuine pathological liar. 'Oh God of Earth and altar bow down and hear my cry...'

If you are coming to the conclusion that I said I believed his story, then all that proves is that you are a lousy researcher who hasn't the ability to read posts thoroughly. You post idiotic off topic pictures in a weak attempt to be funny. It would do us all well to stick to the facts here and keep the attention off you.

UFOwatchdog has been sued twice for libel...Why? Because they source next to NOTHING. And yet you use this as a pillar for your argument.

But I bet you knew that....its not just attention seeking hoaxers that infest this forum, its mud-slinging, poor researchers, who try to promote themselves through poor taste....I am a profound skeptic. Your posts make us all look bad.

Of course, thats just my perspective...

Leave the debunking to those who have more experience and drive.

reply to post by NightVision

UFOwatchdog has been sued twice for libel...Why? Because they source next to NOTHING.

David Morton was the one who tried to sue UFOwatchdog for libel i have not heard of Mr. Rutter or Dr reed. Trying to sue UFOwatchdog. To sue for libel it has to be prooven to be a knowingly false claim. And in the libel cases UFOWATCHDOG won.Morton was not able to proove that what UFOwatchdog was saying was false.
Fail

Leave the debunking to those who have more experience and drive.

Are you one of those guys that no matter how many times any newer member posts something you do not think it is "official" before a FSME a mod or phage says it?



[edit on 5-2-2010 by zaiger]

reply to post by NightVision

Profound skeptic....Leave the debunking to those who have more experience and drive.

Your social skills leave me skeptical. If you can supply any evidence that Reed isn't a BS merchant, you'll go up in my estimation immediately. Before your post, I considered you a decent ATS member so perhaps you are correct and I don't read posts thoroughly?

reply to post by zaiger


The failure or victory of lawsuits does not render Ufowatchdog as a credible source for info. They are basically are calling people out as hoaxers if they can't stop by the office and do a live demonstration. which is fine...but you and I can do that, now can't we?

It takes more than pointing fingers to make a solid argument.

Its the standard of debate which is the crux of the argument I am presenting. Not the validity of the Reed case. Standards which the majority of ATSr's use as a punchline as opposed to a way of conducting themselves.

Originally posted by zaiger
reply to post by Maybe...maybe not

 

You are going to get a bunch of crap from the dr.reed open skulled believer fan boys for posting that. They will make up every excuse in the book to explain why is hoaxed stuff though proven to be a hoax is not a hoax and why he is calling himself a doctor when all he is is a bad photographer.

It appears to hang together quite well as far as I'm concerned.

UFOwatchdog holds up in a court of law, that is enough for me.

[edit on 5-2-2010 by zaiger]

G'day zaiger

Yep..... I know

There's nothing better than a Jonathon Reed / Rutter thread!

But seriously, I know both Reed / Rutter & ufowatchdog strongly polarise opinion.

I wonder how much money Reed / Rutter makes from all of this?

Or, does he do it only for the attention?

I wonder what his current "day job" is?

Kind regards
Maybe...maybe not

Originally posted by Kandinsky

If you can supply any evidence that Reed isn't a BS merchant, you'll go up in my estimation immediately. Before your post, I considered you a decent ATS member so perhaps you are correct and I don't read posts thoroughly?

I've stated before that I am highly skeptical of this case, leaning toward hoax. You are missing my point entirely. You've credited someone else's opinion as the pillar for your argument, rather than your own. See where I'm going w. this? If you're going to be a good skeptic you have to do more than source one website before making a grounded conclusion.





[edit on 5-2-2010 by NightVision]

reply to post by NightVision

The failure or victory of lawsuits does not render Ufowatchdog as a credible source for info. They are basically are calling people out as hoaxers if they can't stop by the office and do a live demonstration.

Not really. In a libel case it is not like that. Say you were calling me a UFO hoaxer,which i thought it was untrue. Now i can take you to court and sue you over it. You would have to present some argument and proof that i am in fact hoaxing what I do. All i have to do is show some evidence that backs my position up. I would not have to proove that UFOs exist i would just have to proove what you put on your website was false.

In Dr.Reeds case all he would have to do is provide. A birth certificate with the name Reed on it, a doctor's degree in anything. Some record to proove that he owned the car he claims to have transported his alien in... on and on.... He would just have to proove that UFO watchdog is making false claims, not ALL of the claims ANY of the claims and he would win.

Its the standard of debate which is the crux of the argument I am presenting. Not the validity of the Reed case. Standards which the majority of ATSr's use as a punchline as opposed to a way of conducting themselves

We have some evidence that Reed is full of crap the name, the date he owned his car and his educational backround are false. "reed" has nothing to back up any of his claims.

[edit on 5-2-2010 by zaiger]

Originally posted by zaiger

Are you one of those guys that no matter how many times any newer member posts something you do not think it is "official" before a FSME a mod or phage says it?

No. What u fail to perceive is that its okay to criticize Rutter, its okay to criticize hoaxers, and its okay to criticize the skeptics & ATS.

...But when it comes to an investigator of such matters criticizing another investigators work ethic, you automatically have permission to label me a tin-foil hat wearing believer.

I don't think so.

I'm not responding to your earlier post because you're describing the process of a libel case in court, which has little to do with my previous comment about the standards of debates held in this thread. Again, sourced info. is the key here. While it may be legal for UFOwatchdog.com to make quotes from people without sourcing them, that still doesn't makes the quotes 'sourced'.

And at any rate its a weak argument to use one website as your pillar for your argument. We both know this.

[edit on 5-2-2010 by NightVision]

reply to post by NightVision


G'day NightVision

It's obvious to all who read your work on ATS that you have huge knowledge & background in this area, gained over many years of research

Are you inclined to say a little about that?

If you are, it might help us to understand your "thinking" & your "conclusions" a little better, which I suspect would be no bad thing.

Anyway.....that's obviously "your call".

Kind regards
Maybe...maybe not

reply to post by NightVision


Scroll up. At what point did i say anything about a tinfoil hat or you being a believer?

Again, sourced info. is the key here. While it may be legal for UFOwatchdog.com to make quotes from people without sourcing them, that still doesn't makes the quotes 'sourced'.

That is why i was posting about how a libel case works. If UFOWATCHDOG had no sources and the info was false then UFOWD would lose the case. All Dr. Reed would have to do would say "I did not say that" "show the court proof of me saying that" and he would win the case.

[edit on 5-2-2010 by zaiger]

Originally posted by NightVision
Thank you, freespirit. After viewing the samples you posted I'm convinced that whatever electro magnetic interference was seen on Reed's video is real.

Hey Nightvision,

I'm just curious what convinced you that the interference in Rutters video was real and not a special effect like the one free_spirit posted for you?

reply to post by zaiger


You labeled me as someone who doesnt believe anything until an ATS mod conforms it, which in my book, is the same thing. I've had my own issues w. Phage. Trust me.

reply to post by freelance_zenarchist


please use my whole quote in that post and I will respond accordingly. thank you.

reply to post by NightVision

You labeled me as someone who doesnt believe anything until an ATS mod conforms it, which in my book, is the same thing.

Scroll up again. I ASKED if you were one of those guys i never labeled you.