Is this a real alien picture? And what about this Roswell EBE footage?

reply to post by vinunleaded


Bases on your two photos they would have needed to manipulate every part of that picture....
their holding its hand and the women would have been added too....

reply to post by tommyjo


I've always wondered; if the autopsy was real, and if so the most important moment in history, why did they not set up the best cameras our inventory and shoot from multiple angles. Seriously, grainy and poorly lit footage? Film footage of d-day taken under extreme duress was crisper. Sheeesh.....



Peace......yak055h

Originally posted by zorgon
[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/186dce620078.png[/atsimg]

This photo of alleged flying saucer occupant, published originally in a [German ??]newspaper in the 1937s has never been [ ] of. The two men holding the "[ ] man" were purported to be
[ ][ ]

For all we know they might not be able to breathe our air.

reply to post by zorgon


Thanks again Zorgon.

This last picture is something

So real, and lock at the all that faces. My wife saw that thing and said, poor thing

reply to post by Cassius666


How do you know?

Originally posted by zorgon
[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/186dce620078.png[/atsimg]

Here's what the caption says:

This photo of alleged flying saucer occupant, published originally in a German newspaper in the 1950's, has never been authenticated. The two men leading the "little man" were purported to be FBI agents.

.

reply to post by RUSSO


After watching the videos, the first one struck my eye after one of you responded to the amount of people in that video.

Too many to be a hoax? I believe that the best way to create a hoax, is if you get the "extras" or "those involved" to believe that they are dealing with in this case really is a wounded/dead alien on a stretcher.

But that's assuming those people in Video 1 with alien: didn't know they were apart of a hoax. It is more likely that they were all in on it. It would not be difficult to fake, especially if it was meant as a crucial distraction. From spending many hours trying to find said truth, I have found through my searches that the World's greatest hoaxes have been government-based.

Some were so focussed on the lights in the sky being extra-terrestrial over Area 51, that many failed to acknowledge black ops aicrafts as a possible real culprit. I have to lean towards Roswell being a cover-up for military aircraft testing gone wrong. It was much easier to promote the idea of crashed aliens, rather than admit to advanced ancient technology- (which admittedly brings me to the same alien conclusion.)

This is coming from someone who does believe in intelligent life "next door". It is finding this specific "door" that has always been my biggest problem. I want to know just how advanced technology really is. But not if it means my compute will explode after I hit the reply button.

Originally posted by Barbadel
Here's what the caption says:
This photo of alleged flying saucer occupant, published originally in a German newspaper in the 1950's, has never been authenticated. The two men leading the "little man" were purported to be FBI agents.

Yep sounds good I was stuck on 'authenticated' but how did you get 1950's out of that?.

Originally posted by zorgon
Yep sounds good I was stuck on 'authenticated' but how did you get 1950's out of that?.

Just to confirm that the caption does refer to the "1950's" (although it should, to have been more precise, have referred to "1950").

The caption, including the reference to the "1950s", is fairly readable in the copy of this photo on the (draft) page of my website that you linked to in this thread.

If you or someone else wants to snip the relevant caption from that photo and put it in this thread, that's fine with me. I'd do it myself but I have to get on with a few things.

I'll get around to expanding and finalising that page of my website when I follow up the point in my thread:
Research request: German article from 1950 and CENAP publication article. I just need to find some time - some how ...


All the best,

Isaac

reply to post by zorgon


1937 is perfect to me.

1950 dont fits.

Originally posted by RUSSO
1937 is perfect to me.

1950 dont fits.

Ok, that view may be reasonable if you look just at the blurred caption posted by someone in this thread - but I've got the book that the relevant scan came from and the text is MUCH clearer in the book and it says "1950's".

As I said above, the caption is more readable on the (draft) page of my website that Zorgon linked to above.

All the best,

Isaac

reply to post by IsaacKoi


I went to the provided website you say you were the researcher or creator of, it really doesn't lead me to no explanation. But, then again that could be because of the fact there is no pertaining direction to go after one accesses the page. Please provide a direction of where to go after accessing the website?

Provided Website

Originally posted by zorgon
[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/186dce620078.png[/atsimg]

I've now had the time to post a better scan of the relevant caption into ATS Media (below), which I'd rather do than post a link to the relevant webpage on my own website at the moment.

All the best,

Isaac

reply to post by IsaacKoi


They are not the same. The last line has two word ending, yours only has one. And the lettering is a bit more refined, not so much New Roman times.
Did you "Retype" your recent input?
And why not give the website link and location of these supposed finding's?

Originally posted by Allred5923
They are not the same. The last line has two word ending, yours only has one. And the lettering is a bit more refined, not so much New Roman times.
Did you "Retype" your recent input?

Yippe... someone finally noticed Yeah the second one is DEFINITELY a retype...



Because in THIS one the script is NOT Times Roman but a European font and the date is definitely a European 7 with a line through it

The line is to distinguish it from the numeral "1". Most Europeans draw a "1" not with just a vertical line, but with a tiny stroke from the top and down to the left. If you're writing quickly, it's easy to mix it up with a "7"

mathforum.org...

I always write my 7's that way

So let's see the ORIGINAL not the retyped version. This photo MAY be fake... but when Skeptics do things like make another fake (the baby buggy pic) and then RETYPE text based on info that suits their bias... are they not just as bad, or worse, than the hoaxer?

Originally posted by Allred5923
Did you "Retype" your recent input?

No.

And why not give the website link and location of these supposed finding's?

Because I don't want to post links to my own website in threads on ATS yet. My website is still in draft and is very incomplete.

reply to post by zorgon


Actually, it was the first thing I noticed, and I am so happy for getting a "Yippee!" from you Zorgon!! LOL
It is definitely a "Tampered with reply." And it also serves the discussion's point of view stated as such, so, guess we will have to wait for the "Construction" to be finished before we see actual proof of his acclimation's of his valid website info.
I went to the provided website that was posted earlier, but it led to nothing at all, not as far as I could tell anyway. But for conversations sake, "I am not writing off the Alien photo just yet Zorgon!!" LOL

reply to post by IsaacKoi


Do you have a source then for the untouched original photo with the old Germanic font intact? Seems that is the only way to resolve this... If it was published in 1937 it would change things drastically

reply to post by IsaacKoi

My website is still in draft and is very incomplete.

Just how "Incomplete" are we talking here IsaacKoi?"
Like maybe still a brain buster , actually working on it? Or have plans for one at a later date?
It's hard to accept argument with your rebuttal and the examples and explanation's you have given thus far.
Maybe you could just send or post the part you are defending here? U2U or just Email it too me, Addy is listed in my Profile, would love to see what kind of info you have in store for your "Website".