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 Lemon.Fresh
reply to post by Damian-007
And once again . . .
Where are all the videos of the Phoenix Lights, no Pentagon impacts, WTC 7 falling, ad nauseum?
No one has provided proof that this is a hoax.
The video of The Phoenix Lights is actually a pretty long video, and shows the entire duration of the sighting, plus, the incident happened when people didn't have cell phones or have small digital cameras like we have today. That happened when cameras were expensive, big, heavy, and again, the video we do have is pretty long. His point was, since these triangles were supposedly there for the entire night, and continuing along into the day, you would think we would have longer videos of it leaving or seeing it move away, but we don't. And there are videos of WTC 7 falling, along with the Pentagon attack, so I don't know why you're acting like there are none. The reason why we don't have as much coverage of the first WTC attack, or the Pentagon attacks for that matter, is because I doubt to many people were just filming the towers for no reason, although, we do have a few videos of the first attack, and is why there are a TON of videos of the second tower getting attacked, because everybody was transfixed onto the sight.
Originally posted by Lemon.Fresh
reply to post by Damian-007
And once again . . .
Where are all the videos of the Phoenix Lights, no Pentagon impacts, WTC 7 falling, ad nauseum?
No one has provided proof that this is a hoax.
Two separate events? Where are you getting this information, or are you just making it up? Both videos came out at around the same time. And your examples of extremely short, and random terrorist attacks, is quit different then comparing an object that is supposedly hovering over a well populated area for well over the night. A few seconds of randomness doesn't even come close to a multiple amount of hours of a stationary object. And all those events you keep talking about, were investigated and seen through a TON of different outlets and news sources, yet, this event gained, what, one news broadcast, with info from youtube? Really?
Originally posted by Lemon.Fresh
reply to post by TravisT
But they all must be hoaxes since there are not hundreds of videos . . .
Out of almost 3,000,000 people that lived in Phoenix in 1997. . . there are how many videos?
WTC 7 and the Pentagon . . . there were 3 million people in the DC metro area, and 8 million in NYC . . . and how many videos do we have?
And I believe the day time shots happened earlier in the year . . . two separate events.
[edit on 12/28/2009 by Lemon.Fresh]
Originally posted by TravisT
Two separate events? Where are you getting this information, or are you just making it up? Both videos came out at around the same time. And your examples of extremely short, and random terrorist attacks, is quit different then comparing an object that is supposedly hovering over a well populated area for well over the night. A few seconds of randomness doesn't even come close to a multiple amount of hours of a stationary object. And all those events you keep talking about, were investigated and seen through a TON of different outlets and news sources, yet, this event gained, what, one news broadcast, with info from youtube? Really?
Originally posted by Lemon.Fresh
reply to post by TravisT
But they all must be hoaxes since there are not hundreds of videos . . .
Out of almost 3,000,000 people that lived in Phoenix in 1997. . . there are how many videos?
WTC 7 and the Pentagon . . . there were 3 million people in the DC metro area, and 8 million in NYC . . . and how many videos do we have?
And I believe the day time shots happened earlier in the year . . . two separate events.
[edit on 12/28/2009 by Lemon.Fresh]
-WTC 1&2 gained the most attention.
-The Pentagon gained close to the same amount of attention.
-WTC7 was mentioned on a TON of news sources, but was swallowed up by the much better footage, and overall news, of both the random WTC attacks.
-The Phoenix lights gained a TON of investigations, a lot of news was covered over the story, press releases, books, documentations, etc etc
-This story: A few youtube videos, and one news source who got its info from youtube. Hmmmmmm?
Your examples are completely opposite to what you're trying to preach. All of these events gained a TON of attention, while this hasn't. Aren't you trying to refute that? If this was so real, then where is the eye witness testimony? Where are more videos or pictures? Where are more news outlets picking this up? Where are there press releases, or even a cover up, if it was even tried to be covered up? There is NOTHING on this story, because the most probable outcome, is that it never even happened.
[edit on 28-12-2009 by TravisT]
And if you can find more claims to back up some evidence that this actually took place, then spill it, because the only info that has come out on this is a youtube video. Even the news source said it got the video from youtube, and that was the only news source to pick up the story. That's almost like having the news get their info from the Weekly World News, and coming off like it's a genuine story. Where is the eye witness testimony? Hell, where are the people who actually took the video? Where are they, and why haven't they even come out to speak?
Originally posted by Lemon.Fresh
And once again . . .
If you have evidence it is a hoax, by God, spill it. If not, then it should be considered the real deal until evidence is put forward.
Originally posted by Lemon.Fresh
And once again . . .
If you have evidence it is a hoax, by God, spill it. If not, then it should be considered the real deal until evidence is put forward.
Originally posted by Castellan
Originally posted by Lemon.Fresh
And once again . . .
If you have evidence it is a hoax, by God, spill it. If not, then it should be considered the real deal until evidence is put forward.
This isnt the US justice system. Wacky youtube videos are not innocent until proven guilty.
On the contrary, such rediculous claims should be proven real with evidence or considered a hoax.
Oh, and by the way, I will not acknowledge a youtube video as "evidence," because it does not fit my theory
But you can "consider" the vid anyway you want, but be prepared to have your opinions "considered" as well.
If it were a reflection (only possible within the car) it would be moving more rapidly with the cars movements, plus for much of the clip you can see the reflections inside the car moving at a different rate to the stationary UFO, so whatever it is it's definetly outside the car.
When he zooms and pans at the same time (very erraticly) the object moves at the correct rate and the object moves perfectly in propertion and time with the movement of the camera.
Lastly look at the pixelation of the object thoughout. This would be nigh on impossible and take a huge amount of time to recreat (what to get loads of hits on Youtube!) The pixels distort and become clearer and out of focus exactly as they would given the quaility of the film and the zooming and framing effects.