[HOAX]Mystery Space Machines, by John Walson[HOAX]

reply to post by cropmuncher


He probably filmed those helicopters at an air show.

reply to post by ngchunter

Exactely. You can "proove" to some dumb sceptics that something is hoaxed merely by saying it is a hoax.

No real proof necessary. This is how slow minded ppl reason. they just label things and no real proof is requiered bacause they Just "know".
Stupidity at it's highest level. This seems to go around a lot at ATS, especially in the moderator levels who seem to place some threads in hoax section because they "know" it is hoaxed. They don't even need any real proof....

It is wrong to say something is hoaxed if you haven't prooven it beyond any doubt, which you certainly haven't.

Especially since the morphing aspect hasn't been prooven.

I'm not saying these videos are not fake, I do think they look suspicious. But at the same time I can tell you relly don't have any hard concrete proof other than your oppinions about the man.


[edit on 14-1-2010 by UfosExiZt]

Originally posted by UfosExiZt
reply to post by ngchunter

 

Exactely. You can "proove" to some dumb sceptics that something is hoaxed merely by saying it is a hoax.

Good thing we did a lot more than that around here by proving plagiarism, proving he pretended a bokeh was a spacecraft, proving he shook his camera tripod to pretend the sky was filled with identical spacecraft, and proving he used tinfoil models shot through a telescope to pretend he had special abilities to track and record secret spaceships.

It is wrong to say something is hoaxed if you haven't prooven it beyond any doubt, which you certainly haven't.

If you doubt he's a hoaxer then PROVE he took those photos. Go on, prove it.

Especially since the morphing aspect hasn't been prooven.

I seriously doubt you even care about that, it's just an excuse to make your belief in the man seem reasonable, and it's just a red herring anyway in light of the plagiarism.

But at the same time I can tell you relly don't have any hard concrete proof other than your oppinions about the man.

His lies and plagiarism are not matters of opinion, they are fact unless you can prove otherwise, and they completely undermine anything else he would present requiring the ability to track satellites.

reply to post by ngchunter

You seem to keep missing the point.

You can't say "This is definately a hoax" without prooving it beyond any doubt.

This you have failed misarably to do.

Keep repeating your mantra that all he did was film tin foil objects without explaining how the morphing was done etc and still say you've prooven it to be a hoax if that makes you happy.

I'm not saying I believe in him, but I can say you have not prooven anything as well.

Until you come with some real proof, it will remain a mystery.

Originally posted by UfosExiZt
reply to post by ngchunter

 

You seem to keep missing the point.

You can't say "This is definately a hoax" without prooving it beyond any doubt.

We did that already, see above. If you're not willing to accept all those things as proof of a hoax then you'll be taken in by any hoaxer who has a theory you deperately want to believe in.

This you have failed misarably to do.

Opinions certainly differ on that. The original photographer whose work was stolen has written me back now and thanked me. It seems he did indeed encounter this hoaxer on the NASA spacecraft forums and JLW's posts were eventually removed there as well, but unfortunately not before people like Zorgon bought into his claim that he had taken that photo.

Keep repeating your mantra that all he did was film tin foil objects without explaining how the morphing was done etc and still say you've prooven it to be a hoax if that makes you happy.

I already explained how the morphing was done, all you have to do is stretch out the tinfoil model as you film it (either with fishing line or by hand from behind a black curtain).

I'm not saying I believe in him, but I can say you have not prooven anything as well.

Oh no, when I produce the morphing video I will hold you to your claim that it was not proven. The video will be final proof that we were right all along to conclude that it was a hoax, a conclusion that was reached fair and square with the smallest amount of logic applied to the knowledge of his lies and plagiarism. When you examine what we already know we find that he lied about the ability required to capture what he claims to have captured and that what he captured is fundamentally a trick of mirrors and tin foil. Adding the morphing effect does not substantively change his claim.

[edit on 15-1-2010 by ngchunter]

reply to post by ngchunter

Only creating a similar video does not proove the video is genuine or not.
You have to PROOVE that the video is faked in order to say it is faked. Not create a similar video. This would proove nothing.

Therefore don't use the expression "prooven to be a hoax" when you in fact haven't prooven anything really.

Originally posted by UfosExiZt
reply to post by ngchunter

 

Only creating a similar video does not proove the video is genuine or not.
You have to PROOVE that the video is faked in order to say it is faked. Not create a similar video. This would proove nothing.

Therefore don't use the expression "prooven to be a hoax" when you in fact haven't prooven anything really.

This is quite funny to watch, but may I suggest, ufosexizt (why ARE you sexist about ufo's, anyway??), that:

1. You learn to spell prove, proved, proven, and proof.

2. You try to understand that your definition of 'proof' is not the one accepted by the wider scientific community. (in hindsight, probly coulda left out the 'wider' bit..)

3. You research the concept of 'burden of proof' and realise that when someone provides a video of 'objects' and:

a - the objects look like nothing previously seen

b - the author refuses to post any details of his methodology or even say where the objects are, to allow the requisite verification (despite him having promised to do so, by the way!)

c - the author admits to not having an understanding of basic astronomy

d - the author refuses (or is unable to) use his 'technique' on known objects for even the most basic verification (this one is PARTICULARLY telling)

e - the objects show depth-of-field effects when the focus is adjusted that are optically impossible from the distances claimed, and an obvious double image effect that is characteristic of optical 'problems'

f - similar objects have not been seen by any recognised astronomer whatsoever, despite many such astronomers having equipment capable of much higher resolutions than the equipment shown in the videos

g - the objects do not 'track' as they should if in earth orbit, or taking other paths claimed by the author

h - that using 'fakery', others have clearly shown similar effects by using small models at close distances, thus explaining 3.e

i - that others have demonstrated 'bokeh' effects showing almost completely identical effects to other images posted by the author

j - the author has blatantly lied and plagiarised (100% proven, dearie) when asked to demonstrate his ability to track objects in earth orbit, yet that ability is a fundamental requirement for the videos

...
(I'll stop there, but can supply more..)

Then the author has failed 'miserably' as you put it, to provide that burden of proof. Instead others, like ngchunter and waveguide3, have provided an astonishing level of proof that the author of these images is a hoaxer.

There is actually a lot more blindingly obvious (to anyone experienced in astronomy and photography) evidence of this being a hoax, but as you seem to be having fundamental difficulties with the whole 'proof' thing, and you have shown not one indication of understanding astronomy or photography to the levels needed to contribute usefully, then this is all the time I shall waste..

And you are most, most welcome to continue in your belief that JLW/Gridkeeper have in fact captured alien spacecraft in detail never before (or again) seen, that MI5 is flying choppers near their houses over them (and sticking their tongues out at them?) in the hope that they will stop... and that you, like them, are party to the greatest secret ever.

I'll only speak for myself, but I take a slightly different view.

reply to post by zorgon


That ? ship was suspect as I only saw Orion.
Thakns for the thread reference

why is jl walson labeled "HOAX" here, it's been proven multiple times he is legit and those things really are spaceships in out orbit. funny how some people are stupid enough to fall for debunkers hoaxes and dirty lies.

tachyonator7
why is jl walson labeled "HOAX" here, it's been proven multiple times he is legit and those things really are spaceships in out orbit. funny how some people are stupid enough to fall for debunkers hoaxes and dirty lies.

Oh really? Then what are the coordinates? What are the orbital elements? Why did he steal his only real photo of ISS from amateur astronomer Paul Rix? Yeah, that's what I thought, HOAX.