Prophet Yahweh Maybe Real UFO?? Footage. View now!!!

Originally posted by UnMature

Originally posted by Lanotom
I am again listening to my conversation with the reporter and during the audio when I am explaing how the object jumps from bottom to top and back he states very matter of fact, you're talking about the balloon?


Why did he say balloon instead of the white spec or orange sphere why did he choose balloon?

[edit on 30-5-2005 by Lanotom]

Well it could have been the fact that you spoke of it as a balloon and the two of you had discussed the possibility that it had been a balloon. I don't think he was being decietful....it's just one of the complexities of the mind, you assosciated this orange speck with a balloon and that's what his mind thought of when you asked him.

Thats what I thought too.
Just a heads up, PW is appearing on 700 WLW at 10pm Eastern, so in about 20 mins. Stream here.

This might be of interest!balloons

Tom, thanks for the posting the interview with Mike from ABC13. Great work.

At one point you asked him about the erratic movement of the object where it appears to jump around, and he attributes that to the movement of the camera at full zoom, saying that on a blank background with no point of reference, shaking will make the object appear to jump around. Well, that is true, but the section at 2:31 where I took the framecaps, the pole is in the shot as a reference point. The movement of the object cannot be attributed to camera movement. And not only does it move rapidly, it actually disappears jumps from one location to another - again, not reproducable with camera shakes.

I think he misunderstood which part of the video you were referring to. If you get a chance to talk to him again, I would be very keen to hear you ask him a little more regarding that specific portion of the footage. Someone earlier in the thread said that badly encoded video will produce that effect, but I've never seen faulty encoding purely effect one object in frame like that (the pole and the cloud were clear as day), nor in such a manner as to make objects actually seem to instantly change location.

Again, cheers for all your efforts. A Way Above from me.

so...

do we know if it a hoax yet or not???

i really want to know...

For anyone that has listened to PY on WLW 700 tonight and heard him speak of 2010 and to get out of the cities and 2012 all hell breaks loose I would ask that you please respect this thread and post your opinions and questions about 2010 or 2012 in the threads that already contain reference to these dates.

This may be the point where PY is falling apart.

I'd like to keep this post to sightings and summons. Otherwise it will become confusing. Maybe after he proves more on the dates to come we can put these dates together.

Thank you so much.

This is great entertainment, my guess is that its a fake. God will come when he come. Looks like someone trying to make some dough.

PY really spoke of 2012?! Well, this is the first time I really started considering the possibility that the whole thing is not a hoax. For those of you who haven't read the thread on Dr. Dan Burisch, please do so (I think it is on the second page). This really means a lot, if true...

NRS 200.620 Interception and attempted interception of wire
communication prohibited; exceptions.

1. Except as otherwise provided in NRS 179.410 to 179.515,
inclusive, 209.419 and 704.195, it is unlawful for any person to
intercept or attempt to intercept any wire communication unless:

(a) The interception or attempted interception is made with the
prior consent of one of the parties to the communication; and

(b) An emergency situation exists and it is impractical to
obtain a court order as required by NRS 179.410 to 179.515, inclusive,
before the interception, in which event the interception is subject to
the requirements of subsection 3. If the application for ratification
is denied, any use or disclosure of the information so intercepted is
unlawful, and the person who made the interception shall notify the
sender and the receiver of the communication that:

(1) The communication was intercepted; and

(2) Upon application to the court, ratification of the
interception was denied.

2. This section does not apply to any person, or to the
officers, employees or agents of any person, engaged in the business
of providing service and facilities for wire communication where the
interception or attempted interception is to construct, maintain,
conduct or operate the service or facilities of that person.

3. Any person who has made an interception in an emergency
situation as provided in paragraph (b) of subsection 1 shall, within
72 hours of the interception, make a written application to a justice
of the Supreme Court or district judge for ratification of the
interception. The interception must not be ratified unless the
applicant shows that:

(a) An emergency situation existed and it was impractical to
obtain a court order before the interception; and

(b) Except for the absence of a court order, the interception
met the requirements of NRS 179.410 to 179.515, inclusive.

4. NRS 200.610 to 200.690, inclusive, do not prohibit the
recording, and NRS 179.410 to 179.515, inclusive, do not prohibit the
reception in evidence, of conversations on wire communications
installed in the office of an official law enforcement or
fire-fighting agency, or a public utility, if the equipment used for
the recording is installed in a facility for wire communications or on
a telephone with a number listed in a directory, on which emergency
calls or requests by a person for response by the law enforcement or
fire-fighting agency or public utility are likely to be received. In
addition, those sections do not prohibit the recording or reception in
evidence of conversations initiated by the law enforcement or
fire-fighting agency or public utility from such a facility or
telephone in connection with responding to the original call or
request, if the agency or public utility informs the other party that
the conversation is being recorded.

(Added to NRS by 1957, 334; A 1973, 1748; 1975, 747; 1983, 120,
681; 1989, 659)

www.leg.state.nv.us...

I would disable this link and stop disseminating this tape if I were you. Just a suggestion.

[edit on 30-5-2005 by TheCaptain]

Captain in what context are you posting that? Is that in relation to the suggestion that there might interference or tampering with the video on the part of the news station?

Originally posted by Lanotom

yahweh.5gigs.com...

I just listened to this... Great interview Lanotom

You have them on record now... I was off of work today and actually read through this whole thread.. amazing story, videos, links, audio and all of the discussion.. dare I say it was even entertaining?

You've done some really awesome work here Lanotom!

I really don't know.. I am very skeptical as well.. It just seems to real at first... then the more you read through this thread, the more it seems to be falling apart.. yet there are some things that really no one has been able to explain away totally.

I guess we'll have to wait and see what happens next with this Prophet Yahweh.


Gazz

[edit on 30-5-2005 by UM_Gazz]

Originally posted by UnMature
Captain in what context are you posting that? Is that in relation to the suggestion that there might interference or tampering with the video on the part of the news station?

No, in that you're recording a member of a news station without his knowledge in a state where it isn't legal.

Posting the video is fine, once it hits the airwaves, it's public domain.

A news station isn't going to put its FCC license on the line for some UFO prophet by adding CG on the tape.

Mr. Dello Strito wouldn't ruin his reputation for some UFO prophet.

So, what you see on the tape, isn't something that's faked on the news stations part. Cross that one off the list.

[edit on 30-5-2005 by TheCaptain]

He fully understood my intentions and just as someone would have called him back for a telephone interview he took the time to call me back after numerous attempts.

I did state in my previous messages that I would like to interview him via telephone.
If the mods feel it is a risk to leave this audio interview then please remove link.

Thank you.


Edit:

The federal law makes it unlawful to record telephone conversations except in one party consent cases which permit one party consent recording by state law. What that means is a person can record their own telephone conversations without the knowledge or consent of the other party in those states that allow one party consent.

It's important to understand the difference between what has become known as one party consent and two party or all party consent. One party consent simply means that one party to the conversation must have knowledge and give consent to the recording. Two party or all party consent means that every party to the conversation must have knowledge and give consent to the recording.

There are twelve states that require all party consent. They are:


California
Connecticut
Delaware
Florida
Illinois
Maryland
Massachusetts
Michigan
Montana
New Hampshire
Pennsylvania
Washington




There are 38 states that permit one party consent. They are:


Alaska
Arkansas
Colorado
District of Columbia
Georgia
Hawaii
Idaho
Indiana
Iowa
Kansas
Kentucky
Louisiana
Maine
Minnesota
Mississippi
Missouri
Nebraska
Nevada
New Jersey
New Mexico
New York
North Carolina
North Dakota
Ohio
Oklahoma
Oregon
Rhode Island
South Carolina
South Dakota
Tennessee
Texas
Utah
Vermont
Virginia
West Virginia
Wisconsin
Wyoming




I fall under the 38 states as he called me.

Originally posted by TheCaptain

Originally posted by UnMature
Captain in what context are you posting that? Is that in relation to the suggestion that there might interference or tampering with the video on the part of the news station?

No, in that you're recording a member of a news station without his knowledge in a state where it isn't legal.

Posting the video is fine, once it hits the airwaves, it's public domain.

[edit on 30-5-2005 by Lanotom]

Originally posted by Lanotom
He fully understood my intentions and just as someone would have called him back for a telephone interview he took the time to call me back after numerous attempts.

I did state in my previous messages that I would like to interview him via telephone.
If the mods feel it is a risk to leave this audio interview then please remove link.

Thank you.

At what point on the tape did you get his compliance to your recording?

Originally posted by TheCaptain

Originally posted by Lanotom
He fully understood my intentions and just as someone would have called him back for a telephone interview he took the time to call me back after numerous attempts.

I did state in my previous messages that I would like to interview him via telephone.
If the mods feel it is a risk to leave this audio interview then please remove link.

Thank you.

At what point on the tape did you get his compliance to your recording?

Did you read my above post.

I am not going to argue a consent issue here. It is only my concern but thank you for yours.

Source www.pimall.com...



N.J. Stat. § 2A:156A-3: Interception of any wire, electronic or oral communication, or disclosure of the contents of such communication by someone having reason to know of the interception, is a crime. The disclosure of intercepted information is not a crime, however, if the contents of the communication have "become public knowledge or public information."

In addition, an interception is legal if the interceptor is a party to the communication, or one of the parties has given prior consent, so long as no criminal or tortious intent is present. Nonetheless, even if a person is a subscriber to a particular telephone, that person cannot consent to the recording of conversations on that telephone to which he is not a party. N.J. Stat. § 2A:156A-4.

Civil liability for unlawful interception or disclosure can be imposed for the greater of actual damages, $100 per day of violation or $1,000, and can include punitive damages, attorney fees and litigation costs. N.J. Stat. § 2A:156A-24.




[edit on 30-5-2005 by Lanotom]

entertaining post and great research Lanotom.

I'm listening to PY on wlw700, he's asked about the significance of June 1st, 2005 and he seems to shrug it off as "someone told about the significance about june 1st has something to do with some Mayan calendar that I don't remember"...

..... figure you would remember something important like that?

As for June 1st, 2005 turns out it's quite significance, according to the Mayan calendar this time is the begining of the alignment of some galactic underworld forces for the next level of human / devine energy alignment(??):

From the perspective of the Mayan calendar the days 13 Ahau and 1 Imix, corresponding to the Gregorian dates June 1 and 2, 2005, represent peak days when it comes to the incoming energies of the Fourth DAY of the Galactic Underworld. They are also at the very midpoint of all of the current Galactic Underworld, which is the name for our present evolution of consciousness. June 1.2, 2005 may give people a taste of the completion of all of creation in late 2011.

info

more

I really didn't want to spin this thread into the 2012 thread but maybe there is some connection.


I found this link interesting.

www.meta-religion.com...

Originally posted by quadricle
entertaining post and great research Lanotom.

I'm listening to PY on wlw700, he's asked about the significance of June 1st, 2005 and he seems to shrug it off as "someone told about the significance about june 1st has something to do with some Mayan calendar that I don't remember"...

..... figure you would remember something important like that?

As for June 1st, 2005 turns out it's quite significance, according to the Mayan calendar this time is the begining of the alignment of some galactic underworld forces for the next level of human / devine energy alignment(??):

From the perspective of the Mayan calendar the days 13 Ahau and 1 Imix, corresponding to the Gregorian dates June 1 and 2, 2005, represent peak days when it comes to the incoming energies of the Fourth DAY of the Galactic Underworld. They are also at the very midpoint of all of the current Galactic Underworld, which is the name for our present evolution of consciousness. June 1.2, 2005 may give people a taste of the completion of all of creation in late 2011.

info

more

On prophet yahweh's website, he has a visitor's area for $7.95 per month. FOr this you can view LIVE broadcasts and pre-recorded. Anyone know if it's worth it and if i purchase this, do you think I'll be able to see what will happen in VEGAS over the next couple of days LIVE?

www.prophetyahweh.com... is his website

During the radio interview he mentions (again) how he hears voices in his head all the time (which are apparently the super beings talking to him...) telling him things and what not...sounds strange he doesn't know more about the supposed events to come?

actually some voice (I think he was trying to imitate it...sounded like Snoop Dog) told him, in his sleep 2010 something something..2011 -- run from the cities...

crazy stuff you gotta love it..

as for the link, interesting....
2010 - 2013 AD -- Final Earth 3D-cycle Harvest: planetary Logos/surface humanity fully 4D+ (??)




[edit on 30-5-2005 by quadricle]

Finished listening to the radio broadcast, and I must say it was an amazing show! He started off a little shakey , but I think he was nervous, but once he hit his stride he was very impressive to me. He spoke a genuinity that really hit home, also very much like his down to earth, straightforward approach, sounds like a very decent guy with much of what he said making good sense.
As far as his powers are concerned, he talks about belief systems being merely catalysts.. and its the mind or intention that have the real powers.. sounds good to me.