List of Truthers/Disinformers/Gray Area in the Field of Ufology

a reply to: Vrill

The BS runneth over.

They should haul Phil Imbrogno out of retirement to write the foreword lol.

FTR - this is one page where Sanchez was pushing the lies. Here's a typical quote from him...

Sanchez's book is so so so so DAMNED GOOD. The level of detail and the manner of approach by Sanchez just seems to be exactly what I expect from a real researcher.

a reply to: Kandinsky

Phil Imbrogno........lol. Poor Rosemary Ellen Guiley. I bet shes still trying to figure out how she got mixed up with him. They wrote a couple of books together.

I love Phil's "Military" story where he claims he was sent on a top secret mission somewhere over there in the Middle East to confirm or deny a Djinn cave. Then he gets into Star Gates while on his "Mission" and whatnot. Good stuff!

While they are at it, they should also bring in Steven Greer for a threesome collaboration to that book.

There are things I disagree on and things I agree with,

firstly... von Daniken may be presenting speculations as facts which is wrong, but if there is any possibility of alien visitation, this is certainly the the older ages and ancient times when people witnessed things and probably even technology. There is no 100% proof of that but I can't get all the dismissal, no one can say for sure and I can say - just because it sounds weird doesn't mean such thing may have not happened, at all!

And if I am to be more skeptical of alien UFOs, that would be all the present times from 20th century to this day, the distant past has better chance of being more real when it comes to UFOs than the world of disinfo, Cold War (20th century), digital age and computers today.

-

David Wilcock, and all contactees (Timothy Good etc) I agree - enough of the bull, Greer, Lear - agree with their position too. For the Ancient Aliens proponents, I would not call them disinfo, they are simply making a show on TV so they have to be sensational about it.


Don't forget the KINGS - Richard Doty and Billy Moore.

originally posted by: kevinp2300
a reply to: wmd_2008

Ok, so you are wrong. There ARE multiple pictures of same events. Look up the Jerusalem ufo, there are 4 different video angles of it. How can you make a claim saying the first 3 are fake sites when you obviously have not done your homework on UFOs.

Really

www.abovetopsecret.com...

Won't take you long to read through all 200+ pages

originally posted by: JamesTB

originally posted by: wmd_2008

originally posted by: JamesTB

originally posted by: wmd_2008
a reply to: kevinp2300

Tell you what YOU post a link to the one you think is the best and lets see what you come up with.

Yeah because all the millions and millions of people who claim to have seen a UFO are all wrong because you say so. Have a word with yourself.

Millions seeing them thousands of videos/pictures and not ONE convincing one

Well I disagree as I think it's just a simple question of technology. Affordable cameras are increasing in quality as time goes on and the footage is getting better all the time try comparing today's videos to ones which were filmed in the 70's.
People like to come out with all these explanations for UFOs like Balloons, Satellites, Chinese Lanterns, Birds ect ect ad nauseam totally disregarding the claims of millions of other people who claim to have seen UFOs as if they know better than them, as if they know better than what those people actually saw with their own eyes. If millions of people are claiming to have seen them then guess what? It's real. I can personally attest to that fact because I have seen one myself.

True quality is getting better but people STILL can't use them properly to many use auto-focus at night and we end up with supposed morphing ufo's when it's the camera hunting for focus, also many people rely on auto exposure at night and we end up with a bright blob.

I will give you an example I took a video at night of an object in the sky which was close enough for me to hear so I knew what it was. I took my 16mp DSLR with it's 70-300mm zoom attached I never change settings from the previous shoot here is the first still from the video.



Typical ball of light in the sky what we see in many videos BUT when the settings are adjusted manual focus, manual exposure this is what shows.



The local police helicopter !!!

Now YOU talk about people saying objects are birds, lanterns etc well most of the people on here that make those comments are keen or even pro photographers, it's been my hobby for 35 years now.

Digital images record exif data which gives time,date, shutter speed,focal length,aperture sometimes even gps data with this you can work out a lot about the picture to rule out or confirm certain claims.

I have said this before we don't seem to get many videos or pictures from people who actually know how to use a camera and ufo sites always seem to remove exif data I wonder why

originally posted by: wmd_2008

originally posted by: JamesTB

originally posted by: wmd_2008

originally posted by: JamesTB

originally posted by: wmd_2008
a reply to: kevinp2300

Tell you what YOU post a link to the one you think is the best and lets see what you come up with.

Yeah because all the millions and millions of people who claim to have seen a UFO are all wrong because you say so. Have a word with yourself.

Well I have to disagree once again.

Millions seeing them thousands of videos/pictures and not ONE convincing one

Well I disagree as I think it's just a simple question of technology. Affordable cameras are increasing in quality as time goes on and the footage is getting better all the time try comparing today's videos to ones which were filmed in the 70's.
People like to come out with all these explanations for UFOs like Balloons, Satellites, Chinese Lanterns, Birds ect ect ad nauseam totally disregarding the claims of millions of other people who claim to have seen UFOs as if they know better than them, as if they know better than what those people actually saw with their own eyes. If millions of people are claiming to have seen them then guess what? It's real. I can personally attest to that fact because I have seen one myself.

True quality is getting better but people STILL can't use them properly to many use auto-focus at night and we end up with supposed morphing ufo's when it's the camera hunting for focus, also many people rely on auto exposure at night and we end up with a bright blob.

I will give you an example I took a video at night of an object in the sky which was close enough for me to hear so I knew what it was. I took my 16mp DSLR with it's 70-300mm zoom attached I never change settings from the previous shoot here is the first still from the video.

Typical ball of light in the sky what we see in many videos BUT when the settings are adjusted manual focus, manual exposure this is what shows.

The local police helicopter !!!

Now YOU talk about people saying objects are birds, lanterns etc well most of the people on here that make those comments are keen or even pro photographers, it's been my hobby for 35 years now.

Digital images record exif data which gives time,date, shutter speed,focal length,aperture sometimes even gps data with this you can work out a lot about the picture to rule out or confirm certain claims.

I have said this before we don't seem to get many videos or pictures from people who actually know how to use a camera and ufo sites always seem to remove exif data I wonder why

Well I have to disagree once again. Do you really think that's what happens, that people are seeing helicopters at night and mistaking them for UFOs? Come off it. What about the lights which perform maneuvers which helicopters are incapable of doing? And also there are plenty of high def videos on You Tube of morphing UFOs checkout Jeremy Thomas's channel he used very high spec equipment.

a reply to: wmd_2008

Morphing anomaly, showing clear morphing, amazing 08/22/14 7:12pm EST



You Tube Link -

www.youtube.com...

a reply to: JamesTB

That's a bit silly to think that I meant they were all helicopters but if that's how your logic works ?

What it was to show was that with the WRONG settings its a blob of light but with the CORRECT settings you can see what is being filmed now is that simple enough for you to understand?

Also nice balloon video!!!

originally posted by: JamesTB
a reply to: wmd_2008

Morphing anomaly, showing clear morphing, amazing 08/22/14 7:12pm EST

You Tube Link -

www.youtube.com...

Well Kirk I had a look at the Jeremy Thomas site & his high tech equipment cough!

1- A modified LG camera, 1/3"CCD, standard definition, with 16-160mm motorized lens and 950nm pass IR filter, USB video capture card used in a PC with iSpy. Magnification up to 26x.

2- An unmodified IP camera, 1/2.5" CCD, 5MP high definition

Lets have a look at those tiny tiny tiny little sensors!

1/3" 4.8x3.6mm 1/2.5" 5.76x4.29 mm

DSLR APC-S format 23.5 x15.6 mm on my camera 16mp.

Small sensors mean more noise and lower performance in low light just what you DON'T need if taking pictures of supposed ufo's.

So much for the expert

there has been thousands of witnesses from all walks of life over many centuries. also the hundreds of pilots both commercial and military in the present time that have seen them. more people on this planet believe in a mythical god that has never been seen, and yet the UFO witnesses are the crazy ones....this is simply illogical, and doesn't stand the critical-thinking test.

and...What´s up with Bill Ryan?

Redfern ain't disinfo. I thought the biowar stuff was really interesting - although I'd already been reading up on the subject so perhaps more familiarity with the subject is needed.

Also this list lacks Vallee.

a reply to: Kandinsky

I just read that thread you linked regarding Sanchez. Man, that was some crazy stuff to read. Definitely could tell that was him using a pseudonym. So is Sanchez just a guy trying to sell a book or is he possibly part of the disinfo programs? I feel better now that I know he duped Oliver Stones son into an interview as well as c2c. Goes to show how important finding out tangible pertinent facts really is for the validity of the subject.