Ships of light, Great UFO Documentary...If this is REAL then WOW

originally posted by: gortex
a reply to: Arbitrageur

I get the feeling that the reason the branches movement looks odd is because he's using models and perspective as with the Billy Meier hoax , the tree in the UFO video isn't the tree in the daytime shot.

oh really? Which tree is that? At what time is it shown, and in which video? Part 1 or 2? I don't think this is a hoax...no not at all. Looks authentic to me.

GS

a reply to: GeminiSky

I don't think this is a hoax...no not at all. Looks authentic to me.

So you've said but that doesn't change the fact that it is.

originally posted by: gortex
a reply to: GeminiSky

I don't think this is a hoax...no not at all. Looks authentic to me.

So you've said but that doesn't change the fact that it is.

I said I dont think its a hoax, but you made statement that it IS ahoax and have nothing to back it up? The burden of proof is on you after you make such a statement. Do you have an educated response? What daytime tree does not look like the nighttime shot and why? Where in the videos is this tree? At what times and in which video?

GS

a reply to: GeminiSky
It's in the second video, where the shot fades from the model tree to the real tree at 34:20 to 34:25.

If you watch closely when it fades, they say they confirm it's the same tree, but gortex is right, it's obviously not the same tree. In fact the leaves look larger like it's a model. (it's hard to make a model of a full sized tree with leaves as small as they would actually appear, and this does appear to be a problem with the model tree).

Also, before that time, Delitosso was examining the video and unlike when he said he thought the photos were genuine, he obviously started to have some doubts that the videos were hoaxed. For example he compared the light beam to a painted popsicle stick and pointed out it's odd that it's dimmer near the source, whereas most lights would tend to be brighter near the source. He doesn't even address the physics of light beams, that they don't illuminate the atmosphere like that unless there's some haze or smog in the atmosphere, and even when they do it's usually not that brightly, and again they would be brighter nearest the source, which is the opposite of what we see.

The list of problems is huge and it's really a poorly done fake. It would be possible to make much better fakes with current technology so if people are fooled by this, I shudder to think how easily they will fall for skillful hoaxes using modern technology.

a reply to: Arbitrageur


That's interesting and sounds like there may be something to it... What ill do is look into the parts you pointed out this evening. ..will come back and share my thoughts. ...

GS

a reply to: Arbitrageur

Well I have now re watched that particular section, and I continued watching thru 24min to 37 min in that second video, and the analysis done there by the video analyst is very plausible and well laid out. Foliage can change, and it appears this is a relatively thick branched tree....who knows how the energy source in the craft affects and vibrated the tree, as well as the space around the craft, creating distortions....

IT should be noted that the craft is vibrating and appears to vibrate the tree....they do not shake simultaneously, in that there is tiny delay with the tree shaking after the crafts movements, lending credibility that the craft is affecting the tree...


GS

originally posted by: gortex
a reply to: GeminiSky

Instead of watching the short segment, how about viewing the case presented on the full videos in the OP?

How about just watching the original footage as it's what this case is about , 4 minutes is better than wasting over 2 hours.
Regardless of the story he tells the whole case rests on whether you find his footage credible and to be perfectly honest the footage is laughable.

You're really grasping at straws if you think this has anything to do with ET.

If this clip is representative of the op videos (which I haven't seen yet) then the whole thing is given at 1:13 where a knock is heard and the picture shakes.
If that knock is enough to be heard on camera then it is a fact that an extremely zoomed in picture will shake violently and the "ufo" would disappear entirely from the picture.

Just saying.

originally posted by: HolgerTheDane2

originally posted by: gortex
a reply to: GeminiSky

Instead of watching the short segment, how about viewing the case presented on the full videos in the OP?

How about just watching the original footage as it's what this case is about , 4 minutes is better than wasting over 2 hours.
Regardless of the story he tells the whole case rests on whether you find his footage credible and to be perfectly honest the footage is laughable.

You're really grasping at straws if you think this has anything to do with ET.

If this clip is representative of the op videos (which I haven't seen yet) then the whole thing is given at 1:13 where a knock is heard and the picture shakes.
If that knock is enough to be heard on camera then it is a fact that an extremely zoomed in picture will shake violently and the "ufo" would disappear entirely from the picture.

Just saying.

There are extensive video analysis and results are presented in the 2 videos. So NO a tiny you tube snippet is not representative of several hours of videos (you should really watch the videos in the OP)

GS

Isn't this another one of Jaime Maussan's "journalistic" discoveries?

originally posted by: GeminiSky

originally posted by: NorCal
After watching the videos and hearing all the people and kids talk I can say they're telling the truth. I have yet to see a light ship in person but the Merkabah is legit.

We're all monkeys. We MUST see to believe. You gotta have some foundation of belief to keep that wall of ignorance down.

Seems to be alot of that ignorance floating around...we can try to deny it...and we do...even when the truth stares us in the face...


GS

That is sooo freaky.
You took the words right out of my mouth (or fingers as it happens).
My target was however quite another. Can you guess who?

Anyway. It seems to me that you have forgotten to actually LOOK at the videos with a critical mind - even if you claim you have. From what I read you have seen the videos and fixed them firmly around your belief system.

originally posted by: GeminiSky

originally posted by: HolgerTheDane2

originally posted by: gortex
a reply to: GeminiSky

Instead of watching the short segment, how about viewing the case presented on the full videos in the OP?

How about just watching the original footage as it's what this case is about , 4 minutes is better than wasting over 2 hours.
Regardless of the story he tells the whole case rests on whether you find his footage credible and to be perfectly honest the footage is laughable.

You're really grasping at straws if you think this has anything to do with ET.

If this clip is representative of the op videos (which I haven't seen yet) then the whole thing is given at 1:13 where a knock is heard and the picture shakes.
If that knock is enough to be heard on camera then it is a fact that an extremely zoomed in picture will shake violently and the "ufo" would disappear entirely from the picture.

Just saying.

There are extensive video analysis and results are presented in the 2 videos. So NO a tiny you tube snippet is not representative of several hours of videos (you should really watch the videos in the OP)

GS

Do we agree that the snippet is in fact from the actual video?

If so then the fact that it is from Youtube makes no difference.

What does make a difference that if "proper" researchers haven't picked up on this tiny little shake means that they haven't paid attention or have deliberately chosen to not mention it.

Whatever the case might be.
The shake indicates that the camera is pointed at a blurry picture as it zooms in, and then there is a tiny knock on the camera casing that reveals it as NOT a shot of a distant UFO.

originally posted by: HolgerTheDane2

originally posted by: GeminiSky

originally posted by: HolgerTheDane2

originally posted by: gortex
a reply to: GeminiSky

Instead of watching the short segment, how about viewing the case presented on the full videos in the OP?

How about just watching the original footage as it's what this case is about , 4 minutes is better than wasting over 2 hours.
Regardless of the story he tells the whole case rests on whether you find his footage credible and to be perfectly honest the footage is laughable.

You're really grasping at straws if you think this has anything to do with ET.

If this clip is representative of the op videos (which I haven't seen yet) then the whole thing is given at 1:13 where a knock is heard and the picture shakes.
If that knock is enough to be heard on camera then it is a fact that an extremely zoomed in picture will shake violently and the "ufo" would disappear entirely from the picture.

Just saying.

There are extensive video analysis and results are presented in the 2 videos. So NO a tiny you tube snippet is not representative of several hours of videos (you should really watch the videos in the OP)

GS

Do we agree that the snippet is in fact from the actual video?

If so then the fact that it is from Youtube makes no difference.

What does make a difference that if "proper" researchers haven't picked up on this tiny little shake means that they haven't paid attention or have deliberately chosen to not mention it.

Whatever the case might be.
The shake indicates that the camera is pointed at a blurry picture as it zooms in, and then there is a tiny knock on the camera casing that reveals it as NOT a shot of a distant UFO.

You are viewing the videos out of context. The camera is on a fixed tripod and would not move as much as you claim...who knows what the knock sound was, and if it even impacted the camera directly...AGAIN THE CAMERA IS MOUNTED ON A TRIPOD...and does not have to "shake violently from a knock heard on the camera" as you so claim...which you would have known if you watched the vids in the OP instead of blindly speculating on something seen out of context...


GS

a reply to: GeminiSky

but you made statement that it IS ahoax and have nothing to back it up? The burden of proof is on you after you make such a statement.

So is this a statement or simply what you think again

The camera is on a fixed tripod and would not move as much as you claim...who knows what the knock sound was, and if it even impacted the camera directly...AGAIN THE CAMERA IS MOUNTED ON A TRIPOD...and does not have to "shake violently from a knock heard on the camera" as you so claim...

can you prove the camera was on a fixed tripod and wouldn't move as such?

Or is this simply what you think and your not making a statement or claim?

originally posted by: GeminiSky

originally posted by: HolgerTheDane2

originally posted by: GeminiSky

originally posted by: HolgerTheDane2

originally posted by: gortex
a reply to: GeminiSky

Instead of watching the short segment, how about viewing the case presented on the full videos in the OP?

How about just watching the original footage as it's what this case is about , 4 minutes is better than wasting over 2 hours.
Regardless of the story he tells the whole case rests on whether you find his footage credible and to be perfectly honest the footage is laughable.

You're really grasping at straws if you think this has anything to do with ET.

If this clip is representative of the op videos (which I haven't seen yet) then the whole thing is given at 1:13 where a knock is heard and the picture shakes.
If that knock is enough to be heard on camera then it is a fact that an extremely zoomed in picture will shake violently and the "ufo" would disappear entirely from the picture.

Just saying.

There are extensive video analysis and results are presented in the 2 videos. So NO a tiny you tube snippet is not representative of several hours of videos (you should really watch the videos in the OP)

GS

Do we agree that the snippet is in fact from the actual video?

If so then the fact that it is from Youtube makes no difference.

What does make a difference that if "proper" researchers haven't picked up on this tiny little shake means that they haven't paid attention or have deliberately chosen to not mention it.

Whatever the case might be.
The shake indicates that the camera is pointed at a blurry picture as it zooms in, and then there is a tiny knock on the camera casing that reveals it as NOT a shot of a distant UFO.

You are viewing the videos out of context. The camera is on a fixed tripod and would not move as much as you claim...who knows what the knock sound was, and if it even impacted the camera directly...AGAIN THE CAMERA IS MOUNTED ON A TRIPOD...and does not have to "shake violently from a knock heard on the camera" as you so claim...which you would have known if you watched the vids in the OP instead of blindly speculating on something seen out of context...


GS

Perhaps "violently" was the wrong word to use.
What I would have said, if I had remembered the forum I'm in, is that the camera would shake enough so that an extreme zoom would have the movement appear much more violent than if the camera wasn't zoomed at all.

But I've watched the first video and are frankly baffled by the "experts".
One claim to have analyzed spectrum and what have you and concludes on the size of the filmed objects.

So if we use our critical glasses on that particular part, then he finds the objects size merely by analyzing the light. He doesn't know the distance to the object and he doesn't know the intensity of the light at the source.
So he cannot measure by anything but what is claimed by the videographer. Which isn't proof of anything.

Another thing that struck me as I watched the video was that some of the pictures have an uncanny resemblence to a lamp shade of the kind made of "folded glass" to make the frilly edge. Cover that with a thin cloth with a suitable pattern and you have an UFO. Not that this is the case. Just that it looks like it.

Not to mention that the appearence and disappearence looks very much like reflected lamp shades and the light being turned on and off.
I have shown before how to make this effect in a way that can look as if the window is open even if the "ufo" is reflected on a glass.

And as an aside I think that any intelligent alien would wait and see mankind destroy itself rather than choosing dubious characters as mouthpieces to warn us to mend our ways.
Planet Earth would probably be better of without us.
Strike "probably" and replace with "certainly"

Edit:
Doesn't it strike you as odd that the suddenly appearing craft in his first four movies displays absolutely no movement and is totally static, when the craft springs into being?

originally posted by: Arbitrageur

originally posted by: GeminiSky
There have been investigations done to indicate the opposite. ...with advanced time space tech on this craft not only trees can move in unison but other solid objects appear to behave unnaturally as well when in proximity to such a craft .

Are you saying that investigations have been done to show that trees defy the laws of physics in the presence of a UFO? I'd like to see those investigations.

In all honesty, i'm fairly agnostic about this case, on the fence as it were.

Having said that though, regarding 'the laws of known physics'.. if these craft are genuine, they are obviously routinely defying what our current science considers to be fundamental truths of physics, so it's not really going to be such a surprise if a craft that defies what we consider to be scientific laws, can in turn affect vegetation in a manner that again seems to defy what we know thus far about physics..is it?

There may be any number of physical processes happening that we only have a tenuous comprehension of..perhaps there is some kind of effect emmenating from the craft, that's causing a reasonance in the atoms of the tree, the water or in the gases naturally contained in the tree's interior cells..if this effect (whatever it might be) is causing a reasonance-like effect in the tissues (etc) of the tree shown in the film, it is not unreasonable to conclude it would effect the entire tree at the same time...this could account for the tree moving as it appears to...the whole thing could be vibrating with some weird oscillation effect at the cellular level perhaps.

It might be an idea to take some core samples from the tree itself and test for possible irregularities in it's cellular (or atomic) structure, just in case there's a residual abnormality present. If there is, it might (just might) give us a pointer in understanding how the craft may actually operate...should it be genuine.

originally posted by: MysterX
Having said that though, regarding 'the laws of known physics'.. if these craft are genuine, they are obviously routinely defying what our current science considers to be fundamental truths of physics, so it's not really going to be such a surprise if a craft that defies what we consider to be scientific laws, can in turn affect vegetation in a manner that again seems to defy what we know thus far about physics..is it?

It would be unrealistically arrogant to say we don't have some new physics to learn; I'm sure we do. Whether such new physics will lead to advanced propulsion is an open question; I certainly hope so but it's not a foregone conclusion.

But yes it will be a tremendous surprise to me if the way a UFO affects surrounding vegetation is to do so in exactly the manner that would make the UFO and vegetation appear to be a hoax. I allowed for that very remote possibility when I said I'm at least 99.9% sure it's a hoax. the 0.1% or less is to allow for something like what you suggest. So yes, it's not impossible but I assign it a very low probability.

Remember this, whatever new laws of physics we learn still have to be consistent with our previous observations.Einstein's theory of relativity when it was new physics still had to explain why Newton's model worked for 300 years and still does in most cases. So based on this example I also think additional new physics is still going to have to be consistent with previous observations, just like relativity still had to be consistent with classical observations. It's very hard to take all we know and just throw that out the window, and that is about what you need to do to accept that it's not a hoax.

It's far more likely that we are going to add to our knowledge, not completely invalidate everything we already know.

a reply to: Arbitrageur

Remember this, whatever new laws of physics we learn still have to be consistent with our previous observations.Einstein's theory of relativity when it was new physics still had to explain why Newton's model worked for 300 years and still does in most cases. So based on this example I also think additional new physics is still going to have to be consistent with previous observations, just like relativity still had to be consistent with classical observations. It's very hard to take all we know and just throw that out the window, and that is about what you need to do to accept that it's not a hoax.

Agreed.

In fact, i'd go as far to postulate that our current laws of physics, as we currently comprehend and apply them, will always remain consistent...because they consistently prove to be accurate in everyday and experimental usage...as we use them...

Where i think we'll make the breakthroughs that i too hope we someday will make, will be in the technological application of those laws in very different ways, perhaps in concert with as yet unrealised methods and processes that could, perhaps combine to produce completey unexpected results, appearing for all the world to be an aberation of the laws, but in reality more or less just being an enhanced understanding of the unforseen physical effects possible in the application of them.

The UFO phenomena is often said to circumvent or otherwise contradict our known laws..perhaps they aren't doing that at all, maybe the craft and those that build and operate them are just applying the same physics we know, in surprising and unknown ways and combinations?

Thanks, I'm going to watch this later - it's one I haven't seen yet. Looks interesting!

originally posted by: Staroth
Thanks, I'm going to watch this later - it's one I haven't seen yet. Looks interesting!

Your welcome...do come back and post your thoughts..

GS

I'm beginning this very interesting thread:

www.abovetopsecret.com...
I'm the director of Alien Abductions...

Post on page 4 by another photographer, also having sightings of lights and ufo related phenomena.

It seems to me, that being a photographer doesnt exclude you from getting sightings, in fact, it may be they're counting on your skills. Disclosure, one drop at a time. Awareness/wake up crew.