It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Originally posted by Chadwickus
reply to post by highlander2008
His word isn't enough, such an event like the one he described should have multiple witnesses.
I asked that way back on page 7:
www.abovetopsecret.com...
There is/are still no corroborating witnesses.
Originally posted by highlander2008
***snip***
They were moving about slowly anyway, he said this (see above). They were NOT stationary. Can you eliminate this, I think not. Remove the Hoax label for a while yet.
Still waiting for someone to tell me how they think this could be hoaxed! I can't see for the life of me how anybody, without special fx could be able to do this. In less than 5 minutes too? And for god sake dont just say the words reflection in glass in window with leds. If i hear that one more time!!!
my bay windows are like a semi-circle. i was looking out of the left end window which when opened like in the vid looking ten o'clock the reflections on the window 'are' from down the street and/or across the road.
Originally posted by easynow
reply to post by highlander2008
imo it has been successfully confirmed a HOAX !
you defending this to the bitter end is certainly suspicious ?
[edit on 2-5-2009 by easynow]
Originally posted by TravisT
My thing wasn't to say this was 100% genuine, but trying to figure out how it was done, if indeed, it was a hoax. Yes, at first I thought it looked real to me, and it still looks pretty damn good, but I knew there were ways of hoaxing it. I just want to figure out exactly how it was done. If it was a reflection, then how exactly did he do it? If it was CGI, then how was it produced? If it was just layered, then again, how was it produced? We keep giving off ideas, which is GREAT, but we still haven't come to a sound conclusion as to how it was done.
I was just taken back by giving my thoughts on areas I'm familiar with, and it getting shot down IMMEDIATELY by some members who have little to no experience, as to what I was presenting. Does it mean what I said was totally 100% accurate? No, nothing ever is, but the lack of consideration to get to the bottom of this was lost in "who knows what better then the other", and that was really getting to me. I'm just shocked by how many members here love to hear the gavel before hearing the jury.
And this is what I was advocating against the entire time. I never said it wasn't glass, per se, but that it wasn't being reflected from an outside mounted piece of glass, for reasons I have stated already.
Originally posted by HolgerTheDaneSome have ventured into the realm of a sheet of glass mounted outside the window frame. This is unlikely for a number of reasons.
My point wasn't for a piece of glass right in front of the camera, but one that was suspended right outside the window itself.
In the video I have used a piece of glass from one of my pictures. It is 20cm by 25cm and does not weigh anywhere near 50 pounds.
Well, with all due respect, nobody presented, IMO, a reasonably, accurate, description of what was going on. All theories were pointing to glass being suspended outside the window, which if it was, would need an extremely huge piece of glass, that would weigh a TON.
I'm sorry if you feel I'm one of those people. It's just that I get very involved and perhaps irritated when people don't see the glaringly obvious. Forgetting of course that we all have different life experience to draw from.
Originally posted by Chadwickus
reply to post by highlander2008
His word isn't enough, such an event like the one he described should have multiple witnesses.
I asked that way back on page 7:
www.abovetopsecret.com...
There is still no corroborating witnesses.
Originally posted by ArMaP
Originally posted by BlasteR
Moore's Law would suggest we are generations ahead of where most people really think we are as far as technological advancement.
No, Moore's Law states that transistor density in integrated circuits, which can be considered as a way of measuring performance, doubles every year (or something like this), it's not something that we can apply to every technology, just integrated circuits.
Almost every measure of the capabilities of digital electronic devices is strongly linked to Moore's law: processing speed, memory capacity, even the number and size of pixels in digital cameras. All of these are improving at (roughly) exponential rates as well. This has dramatically increased the usefulness of digital electronics in nearly every segment of the world economy. Moore's law describes this driving force of technological and social change in the late 20th and early 21st centuries.
Originally posted by UKWO1Phot
How many people saw Oswald shoot JFK?
Originally posted by UKWO1Phot
How many people saw Oswald shoot JFK?