The Washington National Airport Sightings

Where in the video did it say it was a reconstruction, all documentaries state this if the video is in question....

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Also the original member here who said it was fake, said it came from an X-Files episode... what happened to that statement?

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

I give up.

You can't wake a person who is pretending to be asleep

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

You give up on what? I am asking where the use of the video is remaked as being a reconstruction. That is the etiquette of documentaries like this.

I am also asking where is the original claim saying it was from an X-Files documentary.

What you have offered is not proof of the video being constructed for that program. I have a little evidence it might have been, with no direct statement saying it had, which is odd. They usually do.

 

Well?

You must have known this was going to be the reponse, with no indication in the documentary (as far as I have seen) to it's origins. A true investigator would not look at your link and contend you must be true withouut some literature on the video. Which is an odd case, because in all documentaries I can think of, purposefully created video's and remakes are remarked always as such. They are never kept blank unless of course, it is a real video. But then that is suspect because a lot of the time it will tell you it is the real video as well.

Look, I am not accepting that as of yet. Find more evidence supporting it is a remake of the event and not some shadey looking video included in a documentary just because they felt like it.

 

The entire show is FULL of obvious "reconstructions", just like that one.
They don't mention that they are reconstructions, but then they probably like the fact that people like you can't tell the difference.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XGCaO4WNC6Y&feature=related

 

I am not at liberty to make judgements on things that are of personal direction. I will not contend either way on the video until proper bona fide evidence has been distributed here.

 

You already did.
You claimed it was in fact the original video.

But it was presented in a History channel show were all the other videos were clearly reconstructions.

So to contend that it is real requires YOU to provide evidence of same.

Again, it is YOU who are claiming it is real.

Burden is on YOU.

 

I claimed it was the video of the sighting. It was until afterwards I decided it is still possible the video is faked. I am certainly allowed to change my hypothesis. This was done a while back.

 

But if someone comes and claims something against, learn whose defense it is. If it was not made by me, then no burden is on me. The skeptic and the believer are both subject to these rules. Not just me.

 

Nope, extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof.
You claimed it was real video to start with and as of yet you have posted NOTHING to substantiate that.

In the mean time I found that it was from a TV show which is comprised of obvious recreations of events, which were not identified as recreations (though it probably is in the small print at the end of the actual show) .

So, in the absence of any proof that the video is real, it's just one more of the recreations.

 

Fascinating and yet such a typical skeptic wish-wash response.

Trust me, if that is certainly true, then it should not be difficult then for you to provide the proper arguement against, with proper evidence to fit.

 

Listen kid, you got busted. You offered a 'video' that's just not contemporaneous with the event, and then Artur finds it's a bit of filler for an entertainment program, and they make no claim as to it being real. SO IT WAS JUST FLUFF, not fact. Get it? Entertainment FLUFF. You might as well show a clip from 'E.T. The Extraterrestrial', because as far as I recall, there's no disclaimer at the beginning!

 

Busted LOL

Phlog, sir, you are deluded. I haven't been caught out on anything. The poster has changed their claims twice. Once proclaiming that it came from the X-Files, second time around, the poster ellucidated that it comes from a documentary without fail this time, a link provided. The link unfortunately does not even have documented proof of it saying it was a recreation of an event... totall nada, the big goose egg.

Whose been caught out? I admitted the video could be a fake, but equally I have seen no discerning proof to suggest it is not. Only one dodgy documentary which does not make clear from fact or fiction!


:bugeye:

 

Yes you have Mister.

YOU claimed it was "The Original Video" and so it's up to YOU to provide proof that it is real, not for us to prove it's not real.

In the absence of you providing proof that it is real, it means NOTHING.

My finding it as part of a History Channel fluff piece on UFOs filled with recreations doesn't help your position at all.

 

Listen kid, you've made a fool of yourself. The footage is just fluff from an entertainment show. It's filler, fluff, nothing real.

BUSTED!

 

And as I have also stated, later, but not too much later, that the video might be faked.

That part you all seem to be ignoring, or are so deluded that I never figured that out either. But at the same time, if someone wants to prove against which you have you better equip yourself more efficiently in the future to rebuttal such a claim.

Failure to do so, will not prove me wrong in the slightest. This arguement of the video has become a favourable straw man for skeptics in this post, as if the video would be found erreneous would somehow destroy the claim that the event even happened! LOL

 

Might be faked?

LOL

If someone took those pictures that day, then at least STILLS from them would be on the front pages of the newspapers and that short video would have been shown in the newsreels played in the theaters back then.

None of that happened.

It's a recreation.

But what is so funny, is even after finding it was part of a History Channel tv show, you still aren't sure it isn't real, so clearly your ability to detect BS is minimal at best.

Which brings us back to all the inane threads you have started.

Time to toss away childish things.

 

Well, I did notice a reasonable high color resolution which would not be present in those times. I did account that there is evidence it is not entirely fake for this reason since old 1930's cartoons which had been black and white had been digitally remastered in effect of a color program.

Because of this, and as childish as I am, I was sure there was a slight deficiency in believing wholey it was an original.

 

But you didn't even bother to read the debunking of it on the YouTube page itself, before posting it here.

You show no signs of discernment or critical thinking, you are completely unable to analyse anything, even when it's right under your nose!