It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


Help ATS via PayPal:
learn more

Hard turning high speed craft over New Zealand

page: 2
<< 1   >>

log in


posted on May, 9 2014 @ 12:55 PM
a reply to: skyblueworld

You're not open minded when your objective is to discredit someone's claims.

I am open minded. I want to believe. My objective is always to credit the evidence, not the other way around. Unfortunately, that is a rarity in the midst of all these hoaxers.

Stars don't twinkle ,the instability of the atmosphere causes this effect, so on a foggy night you might not see nothing and in the rain and so on or depending on your lens too is it a fasts lens or a slow one.

Awful grammar aside, this doesn't explain why the background doesn't move. If we assume the video was taken (and played back) in real-time, we shouldn't see the stars move; however, if the stars aren't moving, why do they have light trails from exposure? On top of that, why are those light trails consistent throughout the video if they are not moving?

The answer to those questions is that the background is an image; the same image in every frame.

If you have any other explanation I would certainly take another look at it.
edit on 9-5-2014 by lemmin because: Changed quoted name

posted on May, 9 2014 @ 01:11 PM
a reply to: lemmin

Awful grammar aside

You've quoted his word's from my quote. It was taken from his tube account. Grammar is never an issue, I don't know why the need to highlight someones mistakes.

And I have no explanation hence the topic being brought here, but genuinely if you speak to the uploader, which any of you can easily do through your google accounts, or private message him through tube, we could easily either find cracks in his work, or sincerity, I choose to find both by asking the source directly.

posted on May, 9 2014 @ 01:43 PM
a reply to: skyblueworld

Sorry, I forgot to change the quoted name after I copied/pasted that. My mistake. I certainly wasn't trying to attack you in any way. I knew that quote was from the YouTube account when I posted it. My point in mentioning it was that the syntax was screwed up almost to the point of unintelligibility.

My message to you was that I stand by my conclusion until someone can "debunk" my analysis.

It's always a back and forth, and, as I said before, the hoaxers unfortunately are winning by sheer volume.

posted on May, 10 2014 @ 12:06 AM

originally posted by: Phage
Could be a bat or bird.

In this case, not likely to be a bat. New Zealand has only one type of bat and it is the size of a thumb. They are also endangered and I know I've never seen one despite living near the native bush over there.

New Zealand bat

It is at slightly possible that it is a morepork- the native owl. They are reasonably common still, but that would depend where the camera is set up as they only hang around native forests.


new topics

top topics
<< 1   >>

log in