| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
Ray Ubinger
Minor Poster
Joined: 09 Apr 2007
Posts: 90
|
 Posted: Wed May 16, 2007 12:23 am Post subject: |
 |
|
http://thewebfairy.com/911/slideshow/blackbird
| gruts wrote: | | why do you reckon the Naudets left all this incriminating evidence of "whatzits" in their movie? |
Do you really agree the whatzit evidence is extensive and incriminating?
Or do you mean that it can't be incriminating, because it exists -- and criminals are never cocky or careless enough to leave a lot of clues behind? And it can't be extensive, because if so then some authoritative voice -- and well before now -- would have been the person pointing you to the dozen-plus examples that I've pointed this forum to?
| Quote: | | they could easily have edited them out |
What, and lose all that unique dramatic footage which the whatzits subtly inhabit? Or do you mean retouch them out? That's not so easy, is it? (Has anyone yet done an as-good-or-better reconstruction of the surfaced-in-2006 Planeless Cheney Hit, starting from the surfaced-in-2004 Planey Cheney Hit?)
More to the point, why should the No-Day Bruthaz bother? Why remove the whatzits from the Naudet footage when the whatzits are in so much other S11 footage too? If they can get you to refuse to see one they can get you to refuse to see them all.
Ray Ubinger
edited typo |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Ray Ubinger
Minor Poster
Joined: 09 Apr 2007
Posts: 90
|
| Posted: Wed May 16, 2007 1:30 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Dogsmilk wrote: | | Quote: | It is evidence of exotic tech: a shadow-LIKE thing NOT caused as conventional shadows are caused.
|
So now you're saying it's not a shadow...what exactly is a "shadow like thing"? |
It is my descriptive term I apply to some of these previously unknown effects I discovered; patches of video pattern which have similar size and shape as certain filmed objects and which move in sync with those objects, and therefore are like shadows, but which do not line up with the sun like real shadows do, and which are sometimes comprised of white like like real shadows never are.
Ray |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Ray Ubinger
Minor Poster
Joined: 09 Apr 2007
Posts: 90
|
| Posted: Wed May 16, 2007 1:56 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Dogsmilk wrote: | | Quote: | | This does not represent technology we are familiar with. Nothing known to the public projects shadows toward the sun, |
Maybe because they're not actually shadows? Just a thought. |
What else would be of such similar size and shape as, and move in such sync with, filmed objects, but preferentially appear only with those objects, not like glitchy doubling aka ghosting, which operates on ALL the moving objects in a scene? They're more shadow-like than ghosting-like.
And they're far too persistent and consistent to be mere compression artifacts.
The fact that I don't know everything about them does not refute the claim that they are evidence of exotic technology.
Ray |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
chek
Mega Poster
Joined: 12 Sep 2006
Posts: 3889
Location: North Down, N. Ireland
|
| Posted: Wed May 16, 2007 8:40 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Ray Ubinger wrote: | | Dogsmilk wrote: | | Quote: | | This does not represent technology we are familiar with. Nothing known to the public projects shadows toward the sun, |
Maybe because they're not actually shadows? Just a thought. |
What else would be of such similar size and shape as, and move in such sync with, filmed objects, but preferentially appear only with those objects, not like glitchy doubling aka ghosting, which operates on ALL the moving objects in a scene? They're more shadow-like than ghosting-like.
And they're far too persistent and consistent to be mere compression artifacts.
The fact that I don't know everything about them does not refute the claim that they are evidence of exotic technology.
Ray |
On the other hand Ray, unexplained digital video electronic phenomena that you're unable to explain (and are as far as I can tell not even attempting to cross reference with other videos shot at the same time) are just that, and so far only display evidence of exotic imaginings.
In practice I'd suggest that very much refutes your 'observations'.
But I guess it's a harmless enough hobby.
By all means keep us advised should you discover any 'phenomena'
that appear synchronously on multiple publicly-accessible and cross-checkable hi-resolution videos.
And please, not a moment before.
_________________
Dissolution of the Global Corporations.
It's the only way.
It's them or us. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
gruts
Major Poster
Joined: 28 Apr 2007
Posts: 1050
|
| Posted: Wed May 16, 2007 3:20 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Ray Ubinger wrote: | | Do you really agree the whatzit evidence is extensive and incriminating? |
lol - there you go jumping to conclusions again.... 
and while I realise that you've put a lot of work into this, I really don't think you can credibly use the clips you have posted to jump to the conclusions to which you have jumped. You start with a small blob in a video and your next step is to create a science fiction story around it without having anything tangible to base that story on.
That's not evidence - it's just speculation.
and another thing that you haven't explained is why nobody noticed all these "whatzits" at the time. As can clearly be seen throughout the Naudet film (and in many other 9/11 documentaries) - a huge number of people in NYC were constantly looking up at the towers from the moment the first plane hit.
How come none of these people saw any of the "whatzits" that were allegedly flying around above their heads in broad daylight?
after all - UFO sightings are as american as apple pie , so it's strange that if UFOs really were all over the manhattan sky on 9/11 that nobody reported them....
| Ray Ubinger wrote: | | Quote: | | they could easily have edited them out |
What, and lose all that unique dramatic footage which the whatzits subtly inhabit? Or do you mean retouch them out? That's not so easy, is it? |
OK let's take the first clip on this page as an example....
http://911foreknowledge.com/rayswhatzits.htm
I personally think that it's a bit of dirt on the windscreen - but if I'm wrong and it is in fact an example of exotic UFO technology that was part of the 9/11 attacks (as you claim) and the Naudets are part of the gang who carried out 9/11 (as you claim) - then why would they leave this "evidence" of their crimes in the movie?
The few seconds in which the "whatzit" is visible are hardly vital and could easily have been edited out completely. I'm sure they could have removed any other "whatzit" footage that they had without too much trouble - so why didn't they?
it's not a case of losing "all that unique dramatic footage which the whatzits subtly inhabit" - just not sharing it with the public....
Do you think the Naudets weren't in on that part of the plot or do you think those cheeky frenchies were just teasing you? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Ray Ubinger
Minor Poster
Joined: 09 Apr 2007
Posts: 90
|
| Posted: Fri May 18, 2007 4:11 am Post subject: |
|
|
| chek wrote: | | digital video electronic phenomena that you're unable to explain (and are as far as I can tell not even attempting to cross reference with other videos shot at the same time) are just that |
They are not mere e-phenomena, they are photographed things. For this I cite their persistence, multiplicity and consistency.
| Quote: | | so far only display evidence of exotic imaginings. |
What's your conventional counter-explanation for visual patterns that look and act like shadows except they're cast TOWARD the sun, or comprised of WHITE light? Meanwhile no other moving object in the picture suffers from hypothesized "ghosting" (doubling).
Ray |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
chek
Mega Poster
Joined: 12 Sep 2006
Posts: 3889
Location: North Down, N. Ireland
|
| Posted: Fri May 18, 2007 8:42 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Ray Ubinger wrote: | | chek wrote: | | digital video electronic phenomena that you're unable to explain (and are as far as I can tell not even attempting to cross reference with other videos shot at the same time) are just that |
They are not mere e-phenomena, they are photographed things. For this I cite their persistence, multiplicity and consistency. |
What consistency? For comparability you could make a case that old WWI sepia newsreels are positively infested with orbs, wotzits and exotic tech.
Stage two of any investigation would surely be to attempt to corroborate the observations made in film 2. Do witnesses report any aerial objects, any strange radar reports, etc etc. - I'm sure you know the drill.
| Quote: | | so far only display evidence of exotic imaginings. |
What's your conventional counter-explanation for visual patterns that look and act like shadows except they're cast TOWARD the sun, or comprised of WHITE light? Meanwhile no other moving object in the picture suffers from hypothesized "ghosting" (doubling).
Ray [/quote]
Imaginatively enhanced observation of poor source material maybe?
Other than that, not enough data.
_________________
Dissolution of the Global Corporations.
It's the only way.
It's them or us. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Ray Ubinger
Minor Poster
Joined: 09 Apr 2007
Posts: 90
|
| Posted: Sat May 19, 2007 2:20 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| gruts wrote: | why do you reckon the Naudets left all this incriminating evidence of "whatzits" in their movie? | Ray Ubinger wrote: | | Do you really agree the whatzit evidence is extensive and incriminating? |
there you go jumping to conclusions again. |
No, there I go asking whether you could be taken at your word.
| Quote: | | You start with a small blob in a video and your next step is to create a science fiction story around it without having anything tangible to base that story on. |
I point to many similar, strange filmed objects in S11 footage, from many different cameras. I show their "shadows" cast toward the sun, I show their "shadows" comprised of white light, I show their doubling, I show their trails, I show them cloaking as sky-blue or camoflauging as birds, I show them toggling between dark black and bright white, I show them changing from 3D to 2D. These effects are pervasive in S11 footage, yet almost nonexistent in non-S11 footage. But you pretend to be blind, rather face this abundance of direct photographic evidence of not-publicly-known laws of physics.
| Quote: | | another thing that you haven't explained is why nobody noticed all these "whatzits" at the time. |
Do you know that because the mainstream media never told you somebody noticed them? The objects are particularly associated with S11 footage. And not with any one camera. So I could just as well ask why do you think so many different photographers would have conspired to insert fake flying objects, and why on that particular day.
It darts too quickly across the picture at the beginning to be stuck on the windshield. Also, about 5 seconds into the second clip (longer excerpt of same scene), it darts up and left offscreen. Also, about 16 seconds into that clip, it becomes a PAIR of 2-D shadow-like dots, moving in sync high on the north surface of the north tower. Also around that same time, a giant hundred-mile-an-hour bird-shaped "shadow" is cast onto the open sky. Also, in various frames, enhancement shows the object to be shedding droplet trails, as though it were a semi-coherent ball of liquid.
http://911index.0catch.com/bird.html
Windshield dirt does not exhibit any of those characteristics. Therefore you should abandon the windshield-dirt explanation.
| Quote: | | but if I'm wrong [...] then why would they leave this "evidence" of their crimes in the movie? |
You seem to think criminals are never cocky or careless enough to leave evidence behind. The Naudet movie is full of plot holes and poorly hidden clues. They insult our intelligence and provoke us with a near-confession (for instance "boom-boom-boom like they were planning to take a building down"). They arranged to make the movie in the first place so they could rub our noses in their crime, while reaping the praise for an award-winning, even heroic documentary.
Also, erasing filmed objects is NOT trivial work. For instance isn't it true that no one yet has been able to reconstruct the surfaced-in-2006 Planeless Cheney Hit, starting from the surfaced-in-2004 Planey Cheney Hit?
(By the way, a PRE-IMPACT excerpt of the Cheney Hit appeared as early as 2002 ... in a clip EXCLUSIVE TO THE NAUDET MOVIE. See the four Naudet screenshots at
http://911foreknowledge.com/setup.htm
)
Plus, the objects would still be in all those other, NON-Naudet bits of footage, so why bother editing them out? If they can get you to refuse to see one, they can get you to refuse to see them all.
You are almost to the point of saying my evidence must not be evidence of exotic tech BECAUSE my evidence EXISTS. That is not an argument, it is a call for people to close their eyes. Your basic position toward me amounts to "Shut up."
Ray |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
gruts
Major Poster
Joined: 28 Apr 2007
Posts: 1050
|
| Posted: Tue May 22, 2007 12:50 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Ray Ubinger wrote: | | gruts wrote: | why do you reckon the Naudets left all this incriminating evidence of "whatzits" in their movie? | Ray Ubinger wrote: | | Do you really agree the whatzit evidence is extensive and incriminating? |
there you go jumping to conclusions again. |
No, there I go asking whether you could be taken at your word. |
no - there you go misinterpreting what I actually said to fit your beliefs. it's typical of the way you persistently misinterpret facts to fit what you believe to be true.
| Ray Ubinger wrote: | | gruts wrote: | | You start with a small blob in a video and your next step is to create a science fiction story around it without having anything tangible to base that story on. |
I point to many similar, strange filmed objects in S11 footage, from many different cameras. I show their "shadows" cast toward the sun, I show their "shadows" comprised of white light, I show their doubling, I show their trails, I show them cloaking as sky-blue or camoflauging as birds, I show them toggling between dark black and bright white, I show them changing from 3D to 2D. These effects are pervasive in S11 footage, yet almost nonexistent in non-S11 footage. But you pretend to be blind, rather face this abundance of direct photographic evidence of not-publicly-known laws of physics.
| Quote: | | another thing that you haven't explained is why nobody noticed all these "whatzits" at the time. |
Do you know that because the mainstream media never told you somebody noticed them? The objects are particularly associated with S11 footage. And not with any one camera. So I could just as well ask why do you think so many different photographers would have conspired to insert fake flying objects, and why on that particular day. |
there are hundreds of UFO sightings in the USA every year and if it really was the case that there was a cornucopia of mysterious orbs flying around the wtc on 9/11 - changing colour, cloaking, morphing, splitting into 2 and casting huge shadows towards the sun just above the heads of thousands of people whose eyes were fixed on the towers - then don't try to tell me that nobody would have seen them and that we wouldn't have heard about it.
who needs the mainstream media?
have you ever heard of the alternative media? or the internet perhaps? 
or for that matter, any number of UFO organisations that might have some corroborating evidence to back up your claims?
see here for example - http://www.westmassmufon.org/ufo.org.htm
how do you know that "These effects are pervasive in S11 footage, yet almost nonexistent in non-S11 footage"?
how many UFO organisations have you contacted to find out if the footage you've got correlates in any way with what UFO researchers claim to have been observing over the past few decades?
do you know of any UFO organisation that is investigating the "UFOs on 9/11" angle or takes it seriously?
in fact - does anybody except you and the handful of other people who are pushing the NPT disinfo take it seriously?
and please find me an eyewitness.
| Ray Ubinger wrote: |
It darts too quickly across the picture at the beginning to be stuck on the windshield. Also, about 5 seconds into the second clip (longer excerpt of same scene), it darts up and left offscreen. Also, about 16 seconds into that clip, it becomes a PAIR of 2-D shadow-like dots, moving in sync high on the north surface of the north tower. Also around that same time, a giant hundred-mile-an-hour bird-shaped "shadow" is cast onto the open sky. Also, in various frames, enhancement shows the object to be shedding droplet trails, as though it were a semi-coherent ball of liquid.
http://911index.0catch.com/bird.html
Windshield dirt does not exhibit any of those characteristics. Therefore you should abandon the windshield-dirt explanation. |
after the first tower was hit thousands of people all over Manhattan had their eyes trained on the upper floors of the WTC - from the ground, from their homes, from rooftops, from windows in the many high rise buildings....
The wtc was situated on the edge of the hudson river and the upper floors of the towers could easily be seen for many miles around.
large numbers of people will also have been watching the towers burn from New Jersey in the west, and an even larger number will have been watching from Brooklyn and Queens in the East.
until you can adequately explain why none of these people seem to have seen any of this stuff happening, I think I'll stick to my opinion that you and your imagination are making something out of nothing.
| Ray Ubinger wrote: | | gruts wrote: | | but if I'm wrong [...] then why would they leave this "evidence" of their crimes in the movie? |
You seem to think criminals are never cocky or careless enough to leave evidence behind. The Naudet movie is full of plot holes and poorly hidden clues. They insult our intelligence and provoke us with a near-confession (for instance "boom-boom-boom like they were planning to take a building down"). They arranged to make the movie in the first place so they could rub our noses in their crime, while reaping the praise for an award-winning, even heroic documentary. |
we've discussed your unsubstantiated claims against the naudets on another thread.
| Ray Ubinger wrote: | Also, erasing filmed objects is NOT trivial work. For instance isn't it true that no one yet has been able to reconstruct the surfaced-in-2006 Planeless Cheney Hit, starting from the surfaced-in-2004 Planey Cheney Hit?
(By the way, a PRE-IMPACT excerpt of the Cheney Hit appeared as early as 2002 ... in a clip EXCLUSIVE TO THE NAUDET MOVIE. See the four Naudet screenshots at
http://911foreknowledge.com/setup.htm
)
Plus, the objects would still be in all those other, NON-Naudet bits of footage, so why bother editing them out? If they can get you to refuse to see one, they can get you to refuse to see them all.
You are almost to the point of saying my evidence must not be evidence of exotic tech BECAUSE my evidence EXISTS. That is not an argument, it is a call for people to close their eyes. Your basic position toward me amounts to "Shut up."
Ray |
I have never told you to shut up and I have not seen anyone else on this forum try to muzzle you in any way. I just happen to find your "evidence" completely unconvincing.
Nevertheless, as far as I'm concerned you can go on imagining that video artifacts, bits of dirt, airbourne wtc debris and birds are UFOs for as long as you like. I doubt if you'll convince many people to agree with you but that's your cross to bear if you wish to carry it.... |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Ray Ubinger
Minor Poster
Joined: 09 Apr 2007
Posts: 90
|
| Posted: Wed May 23, 2007 7:53 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| gruts wrote: | | Ray Ubinger wrote: | | gruts wrote: | why do you reckon the Naudets left all this incriminating evidence of "whatzits" in their movie? | Ray Ubinger wrote: | | Do you really agree the whatzit evidence is extensive and incriminating? |
there you go jumping to conclusions again. |
No, there I go asking whether you could be taken at your word. |
no - there you go misinterpreting what I actually said |
It was a question. You needed only respond "No."
| Quote: | | Quote: | | You start with a small blob in a video and your next step is to create a science fiction story around it without having anything tangible to base that story on. |
I point to many similar, strange filmed objects in S11 footage, from many different cameras. I show their "shadows" cast toward the sun, I show their "shadows" comprised of white light, I show their doubling, I show their trails, I show them cloaking as sky-blue or camoflauging as birds, I show them toggling between dark black and bright white, I show them changing from 3D to 2D. These effects are pervasive in S11 footage, yet almost nonexistent in non-S11 footage. But you pretend to be blind, rather face this abundance of direct photographic evidence of not-publicly-known laws of physics.
| Quote: | | if it really was the case that there was a cornucopia of mysterious orbs flying around the wtc on 9/11 - changing colour, cloaking, morphing, splitting into 2 and casting huge shadows towards the sun just above the heads of thousands of people whose eyes were fixed on the towers - then don't try to tell me that nobody would have seen them and that we wouldn't have heard about it. |
|
Do you think the vids which show those phenomena are all faked?
| Quote: | | how do you know that "These effects are pervasive in S11 footage, yet almost nonexistent in non-S11 footage"? |
Because approximately 0% of non-S11 footage is footage of UFOs.
| Quote: | | please find me an eyewitness. |
Photos are more reliable. Cameras don't have agendas or fears.
| Quote: | | Quote: |
It darts too quickly across the picture at the beginning to be stuck on the windshield. Also, about 5 seconds into the second clip (longer excerpt of same scene), it darts up and left offscreen. Also, about 16 seconds into that clip, it becomes a PAIR of 2-D shadow-like dots, moving in sync high on the north surface of the north tower. Also around that same time, a giant hundred-mile-an-hour bird-shaped "shadow" is cast onto the open sky. Also, in various frames, enhancement shows the object to be shedding droplet trails, as though it were a semi-coherent ball of liquid.
http://911index.0catch.com/bird.html
Windshield dirt does not exhibit any of those characteristics. Therefore you should abandon the windshield-dirt explanation. |
until you can adequately explain why none of these people seem to have seen any of this stuff happening, I think I'll stick to my opinion that you and your imagination are making something out of nothing. |
I appreciate that having your attitude is a lot EASIER than explaining a giant hundred-mile-an-hour bird-shaped shadow cast onto the open sky and caught on video. The down side is, when you refuse to acknowledge evidence you become part of the cover-up.
Ray Ubinger
Durham NC USA
http://911foreknowledge.com
Naudet 911: the art of the MOCK-YOU-drama |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Micpsi
Moderate Poster
Joined: 13 Feb 2007
Posts: 505
|
| Posted: Sat May 26, 2007 8:31 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: | when you refuse to acknowledge evidence you become part of the cover-up.
|
That begs the question that the evidence was genuine instead of imagined. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
gruts
Major Poster
Joined: 28 Apr 2007
Posts: 1050
|
| Posted: Thu May 31, 2007 11:48 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Micpsi wrote: | | Quote: | when you refuse to acknowledge evidence you become part of the cover-up.
|
That begs the question that the evidence was genuine instead of imagined. |
well let's sum up ray's "voluminous evidence"....
"I Ray Ubinger testify that:
the most compelling evidence that 9/11 was an inside job is my belief that the naudets are in on the plot and their documentary is a deliberately made snuff film - based on the fact that they managed to get a shot of the first plane hitting the north tower. I have no actual evidence linking them to the crime - I JUST BELIEVE IT'S TRUE, and interpret the facts to fit my belief - and then pretend that my interpretations of the facts are "evidence" to justify my belief....
actually, I also believe that it's not really a plane that hit the tower because the image in the footage they managed to get is not clear enough for my liking - and this couldn't possibly be explained by the fact that it was a fast moving object some distance away shot with a camera which had until that moment been focused on a fireman a few feet away - I JUST BELIEVE THAT IT ISN'T A PLANE SO IT CAN'T BE....
and I'm also convinced that there were multiple UFOs flying all around the WTC on 9/11 doing all kinds of highly noticeable things (while casually breaking the laws of physics), based solely on the appearance of a few small blobs in some of the footage I've seen (which couldn't possibly be video artifacts, bits of dirt, floating wtc debris, birds or anything like that), and although nobody actually saw any of these UFOs and I have made no attempt to corroborate the assumptions I've made about these small blobs, it must be true BECAUSE THAT'S WHAT I BELIEVE."
| Ray Ubinger wrote: | when you refuse to acknowledge evidence you become part of the cover-up.
|
so I'm either with you or with the perps - right? that sounds uncannily like something george w bush once said....
and please note that I'm not refusing to acknowledge evidence, because despite spending hundreds of hours obsessively watching the naudet movie frame by frame, you don't have anything that qualifies as evidence.
I guess the reason we're all here is that we're not the kind of people who just believe whatever we're told, but can decide for ourselves whether or not it's worth believing. so the fact that I'm not convinced by the official story of 9/11 doesn't mean that I'm going to swallow your no-planes-french-connection-ufos-that-break-the-laws-of-physics version either.
I have to say that it sounds equally unlikely to me.... |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
gruts
Major Poster
Joined: 28 Apr 2007
Posts: 1050
|
| Posted: Fri Jun 01, 2007 9:07 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Ray Ubinger wrote: | | Because approximately 0% of non-S11 footage is footage of UFOs. |
just noticed this on another thread - maybe you should compare notes with these guys ray....
http://www.nineeleven.co.uk/board/viewtopic.php?t=9110
| Quote: | | Having spoken to a number of Mexican researchers about the hundreds of hours of video footage taken in the last 17 years which appears to show a vast array of anomalous phenomena ranging from fleets of 'orbs' to structured crafts to many diverse morphologies in terms of 'humanoids' |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Ray Ubinger
Minor Poster
Joined: 09 Apr 2007
Posts: 90
|
| Posted: Mon Jun 04, 2007 9:51 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| chek wrote: | | Ray Ubinger wrote: | | chek wrote: | | digital video electronic phenomena that you're unable to explain (and are as far as I can tell not even attempting to cross reference with other videos shot at the same time) are just that |
They are not mere e-phenomena, they are photographed things. For this I cite their persistence, multiplicity and consistency. |
What consistency? |
For example their repeated association with discs of white light projected onto the surfaces of buildings. Here are three separate pieces of whatzit footage wherein that phenomenon is observed at least five times.
1. Naudet 1st Hit "birds"
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zalE7W-RkEI
Around 00:15, the "bird" that went to the right, becomes a 2-D shadow dot, moving down the left edge of the right-most building. Around 00:17, it becomes a white dot, moving leftward across the top floor of the second building from the right.
2. Naudet Truck Whatzit
http://webfairy.org/slideshow/911whatzit
Frames 168-188 onto the second building from the left. Also Frames 197-204 onto the first building on the left.
3. Naudet Blackbird
http://webfairy.org/slideshow/blackbird/
third and fourth excerpts
| Quote: | | For comparability you could make a case that old WWI sepia newsreels are positively infested with orbs, wotzits and exotic tech. |
No, my stuff is objects that move in continuous paths, trackable for dozens of consecutive frames. Not transient flecks jumping around at random like bits of white noise all around the screen.
Ray Ubinger
Durham NC USA
http://911foreknowledge.com/rayswhatzits.htm |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Ray Ubinger
Minor Poster
Joined: 09 Apr 2007
Posts: 90
|
| Posted: Mon Jun 04, 2007 10:14 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Micpsi wrote: | | Quote: | when you refuse to acknowledge evidence you become part of the cover-up.
|
That begs the question that the evidence was genuine instead of imagined. |
I point to many similar, strange filmed objects in S11 footage, from many different cameras. I show their "shadows" cast toward the sun, I show their "shadows" comprised of white light, I show their doubling, I show their trails, I show them cloaking as sky-blue or camoflauging as birds, I show them toggling between dark black and bright white, I show them changing from 3D to 2D; I scrupulously cite Frame numbers and video Clock times for precise reference. If you still don't see what I'm pointing to, get an eye exam.
Ray Ubinger
Durham NC USA
http://911foreknowledge.com/rayswhatzits.htm |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Ray Ubinger
Minor Poster
Joined: 09 Apr 2007
Posts: 90
|
| Posted: Mon Jun 04, 2007 10:17 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: | | well let's sum up ray's "voluminous evidence" |
Still waiting for you to say whether or not you've watched the Naudet movie, gruts.
Ray Ubinger
Durham NC USA
http://911foreknowledge.com
exposing the Naudet-FDNY snuff film since 2004 |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Micpsi
Moderate Poster
Joined: 13 Feb 2007
Posts: 505
|
| Posted: Mon Jun 04, 2007 11:03 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Ray Ubinger wrote: | | Micpsi wrote: | | Quote: | when you refuse to acknowledge evidence you become part of the cover-up.
|
That begs the question that the evidence was genuine instead of imagined. |
I point to many similar, strange filmed objects in S11 footage, from many different cameras. I show their "shadows" cast toward the sun, I show their "shadows" comprised of white light, I show their doubling, I show their trails, I show them cloaking as sky-blue or camoflauging as birds, I show them toggling between dark black and bright white, I show them changing from 3D to 2D; I scrupulously cite Frame numbers and video Clock times for precise reference. If you still don't see what I'm pointing to, get an eye exam.
Ray Ubinger
Durham NC USA
http://911foreknowledge.com/rayswhatzits.htm |
The objects are only strange to you because you have not thought of plausible, natural explanations for them. What is strange to one person is not so to a more intelligent person. That is why your videos don't impress others. What your over-heated imagination labels as anomalies really amount to no more than misunderstood video artefacts - Rorschach ink blots that, in your ignorance, you turn into anomalies. I prefer to let my reason rule over my imagination and wishful thinking. That's why, although I do, indeed, see what you point to, I don't infer from it what you wildly do. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
gruts
Major Poster
Joined: 28 Apr 2007
Posts: 1050
|
| Posted: Tue Jun 05, 2007 2:25 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Ray Ubinger wrote: | | Quote: | | well let's sum up ray's "voluminous evidence" |
Still waiting for you to say whether or not you've watched the Naudet movie, gruts.
Ray Ubinger
Durham NC USA
http://911foreknowledge.com
exposing the Naudet-FDNY snuff film since 2004 |
try reading through the thread again.... |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
gruts
Major Poster
Joined: 28 Apr 2007
Posts: 1050
|
| Posted: Tue Jun 05, 2007 6:02 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Ray Ubinger wrote: | I point to many similar, strange filmed objects in S11 footage, from many different cameras. I show their "shadows" cast toward the sun, I show their "shadows" comprised of white light, I show their doubling, I show their trails, I show them cloaking as sky-blue or camoflauging as birds, I show them toggling between dark black and bright white, I show them changing from 3D to 2D; I scrupulously cite Frame numbers and video Clock times for precise reference. If you still don't see what I'm pointing to, get an eye exam.
Ray Ubinger
Durham NC USA
http://911foreknowledge.com/rayswhatzits.htm |
but that begs the question - did the perps use REAL orbs/whatzits on 9/11 or was some sort of tv fakery involved?
Maybe you should change your name to Ray Orbhugger!  |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Ray Ubinger
Minor Poster
Joined: 09 Apr 2007
Posts: 90
|
| Posted: Thu Jun 07, 2007 10:34 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Micpsi wrote: | | Ray Ubinger wrote: | | I point to many similar, strange filmed objects in S11 footage, from many different cameras. I show their "shadows" cast toward the sun, I show their "shadows" comprised of white light, I show their doubling, I show their trails, I show them cloaking as sky-blue or camoflauging as birds, I show them toggling between dark black and bright white, I show them changing from 3D to 2D; I scrupulously cite Frame numbers and video Clock times for precise reference. If you still don't see what I'm pointing to, get an eye exam. |
The objects are only strange to you because you have not thought of plausible, natural explanations for them. |
The objects are only plausible and natural to you because you pretend that camera footage frequently contains such phenomena as I listed. Show some counterexamples already, of these same phenomena (which were caught on many different S11 cameras) in NON-S11 footage, if they're really so natural.
Do you seriously mean to suggest that before S11 happened, you would have said that video camera glitches frequently create images that falsely appear like flying orbs,
casting white shadows
casting shadows toward the sun
casting giant hundred-mile-an-hour bird-shaped shadows onto the open sky
splitting up into multiple copies of themselves
cloaking from black to white-and-sky-blue in an eyeblink
toggling between bright white and dark black
toggling between 3D and 2D
and shedding droplet-like trails in their wake
??
| Quote: | | What your over-heated imagination labels as anomalies really amount to no more than misunderstood video artefacts |
Are you using some actual definition of Video Artifact, besides "something you weren't expecting to see?" When I look it up online I see examples mostly involving edge fuzziness. Not the projection of white laser-like shadow dots, to cite an example I've documented in several vids, nor any of the other listed phenomena.
| Quote: | | I prefer to let my reason rule over my imagination and wishful thinking. |
Reason proceeds on evidence. I'm showing mine and asserting it's extremely unusual in appearance. Now show yours. Show your evidence that this is simply how videos normally look.
Ray Ubinger
Durham NC USA
http://911foreknowledge.com/rayswhatzits.htm |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Ray Ubinger
Minor Poster
Joined: 09 Apr 2007
Posts: 90
|
| Posted: Thu Jun 07, 2007 10:44 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| gruts wrote: | | Ray Ubinger wrote: | | Still waiting for you to say whether or not you've watched the Naudet movie, gruts. |
try reading through the thread again |
Did you say whether or not you've watched that movie?
Ray |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Ray Ubinger
Minor Poster
Joined: 09 Apr 2007
Posts: 90
|
| Posted: Thu Jun 07, 2007 11:01 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| gruts wrote: | | did the perps use REAL orbs/whatzits on 9/11 or was some sort of tv fakery involved? |
They don't look phony to my eye. Strange as can be, but not inserted.
How about to your eye? Do you see something to indicate that these these similar phenomena in vids from many different cameras, were pasted in?
| Quote: | | Maybe you should change your name to Ray Orbhugger! |
Because you think it's obvious that the phenomena which I have documented were inserted? You would rather make fun of me for wrongly interpreting this important evidence I discovered, than correct my interpretation and assist me in disseminating the evidence? Or don't you think evidence of video fakery (in your apparent interpretation) is important?
Ray Ubinger |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
gruts
Major Poster
Joined: 28 Apr 2007
Posts: 1050
|
| Posted: Fri Jun 08, 2007 12:07 pm Post subject: |
|
|
ok Ray - let's sum up....
you have watched the naudet movie and somehow deduced that:
1. the naudets were working for the perps and were consciously making a snuff movie
2. the naudets murdered the Staten Island FDNY probie Michael Gorumba, the FDNY Chaplain Mychal Judge and Lt Kevin Pfeifer (the brother of Battalion Chief Joseph Pfeifer)
3. their footage of the first plane crashing into the north tower is actually evidence that no planes hit the WTC
4. on the other hand numerous UFOs that can break the laws of physics were somehow involved in the attacks
I think these claims are red herrings and that your reasons for jumping to the conclusions to which you've jumped don't hold any water. your "evidence" is entirely speculative, so unless you can substantiate it somehow, I'm afraid that you're always going to find it difficult to convince people to believe you. best of luck anyway.... |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Micpsi
Moderate Poster
Joined: 13 Feb 2007
Posts: 505
|
| Posted: Sat Jun 09, 2007 3:43 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Ray Ubinger wrote: | | Micpsi wrote: | | Ray Ubinger wrote: | | I point to many similar, strange filmed objects in S11 footage, from many different cameras. I show their "shadows" cast toward the sun, I show their "shadows" comprised of white light, I show their doubling, I show their trails, I show them cloaking as sky-blue or camoflauging as birds, I show them toggling between dark black and bright white, I show them changing from 3D to 2D; I scrupulously cite Frame numbers and video Clock times for precise reference. If you still don't see what I'm pointing to, get an eye exam. |
The objects are only strange to you because you have not thought of plausible, natural explanations for them. |
The objects are only plausible and natural to you because you pretend that camera footage frequently contains such phenomena as I listed.
No, I don't have to pretend anything. I just question your judgement that they amount to true anomalies because you have an agenda that makes you WANT to believe images whose behaviour actually has mundane explanation are anomalous.
Show some counterexamples already, of these same phenomena (which were caught on many different S11 cameras) in NON-S11 footage, if they're really so natural.
It's your responsibility, not mine, to prove your claim.
Do you seriously mean to suggest that before S11 happened, you would have said that video camera glitches frequently create images that falsely appear like flying orbs,
casting white shadows
casting shadows toward the sun
casting giant hundred-mile-an-hour bird-shaped shadows onto the open sky
splitting up into multiple copies of themselves
cloaking from black to white-and-sky-blue in an eyeblink
toggling between bright white and dark black
toggling between 3D and 2D
and shedding droplet-like trails in their wake
??
Yes. Because all you are referring to are far more likely artefacts of compressed, low resolution videos than orbs guided by ETs!
| Quote: | | What your over-heated imagination labels as anomalies really amount to no more than misunderstood video artefacts |
Are you using some actual definition of Video Artifact, besides "something you weren't expecting to see?" When I look it up online I see examples mostly involving edge fuzziness. Not the projection of white laser-like shadow dots, to cite an example I've documented in several vids, nor any of the other listed phenomena.
Come back with the original footage and show these supposed anomalies. Then I might take you more seriously. Magnifying up highly compressed video footage and then claiming to see odd things in it does not cut it, I am afraid.
| Quote: | | I prefer to let my reason rule over my imagination and wishful thinking. |
Reason proceeds on evidence. I'm showing mine and asserting it's extremely unusual in appearance. Now show yours. Show your evidence that this is simply how videos normally look.
Your 'evidence' consists of turning video artefacts into orbs and UFOs. Call that using 'reason'? Give me a break! You expect me to take you seriously? I am a theoretical physicist with 70 research papers and three books published who has worked with Nobel Prize winners. Take your ridiculous stuff to somewhere like Godlikeproductions, where I am sure you will find approval by many tin hat wearers who think 9/11 was carried out by ETs.
Ray Ubinger
Durham NC USA
http://911foreknowledge.com/rayswhatzits.htm |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Chat
Usergroups
Calendar
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
