It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Thank you.

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

Help ATS via PayPal:

# Australian TV Production Crew Captures on Film Two UFOs in Queenstown, New Zealand

page: 3
17
share:

posted on May, 14 2014 @ 08:35 AM

originally posted by: eriktheawful
Anyone that has a video camera (or a camera that can take video) can go out and test this just fine. Take an object and move it at the same speed, have one very close to the camera, and the other quite far, and look at your results: the object close to the camera will seem to move with incredible speed as compared to the object further away.

You don't even need a camera, it's just simple maths. For a given angle of view, the straight-line distance from edge to edge of the frame will halve if you halve the distance to the object in question. (Similar triangles.) Halve the distance, keep the time the same and you've doubled the speed.

So, a bug 50cm from the lens travelling at 10mph could look like a UFO half a kilometre from the lens travelling at 1,000mph, or Mach 1.3

(Edit: forgive the total car crash of different units there... I'm British, we're still kind of stuck in a semi-metricated mess!)

edit on 14-5-2014 by Rob48 because: (no reason given)

posted on May, 14 2014 @ 09:07 AM

Yah....but it's MATH!

Most people hate to do the math.....

But they do like to mess around with equipment!

posted on May, 14 2014 @ 11:25 AM
delete

,

edit on 14-5-2014 by InhaleExhale because: (no reason given)

posted on May, 14 2014 @ 12:18 PM
Those look like bugs, over the road, that's how close they appear to me. They are visible in front of the trees.

posted on May, 14 2014 @ 01:16 PM

originally posted by: AlphaHawk

So you didn't click the link I shared then?

Seems people here have been trying to help people's open their minds up to the possibility of it being birds for years, yet some remain ridiculously closed minded.

I did visit the link and I was not impressed with the video clips because they all show what can be accepted as "bugs" flying close to the camera. The video under discussion here, in my opinion, are not bugs. The 2 objects are at a hell of a distance and like some others claim the objects did not emanate frofromtrees but at a distance behind them.

This thread has brought out weird thinkers who claim they see flapping wings, etc.

It could be that I'm wrong and everyone is correct but I wouldn't bet on it.

I went through this in 2009 when I posted about what I considered 2 UFOs flying almost identical to the 2 under discussion and while my 2 UFOs were not flying as fast they were 2 white orbs hauling. I got the usual similar replies about bugs, jets, etc., even though no such details are visible.

I don't know what it is about some people that see things totally different from reality.

Take a look:
In the 1999 movie titled "TEASE" with Rosanna Arquette (also known as "POISON") white objects commonly referred to as "orbs" are seen hauling in the sky towards the right edge of the screen @ 1:03:44 2.

posted on May, 14 2014 @ 01:22 PM

originally posted by: Uggielicious
The 2 objects are at a hell of a distance and like some others claim the objects did not emanate frofromtrees but at a distance behind them.

You mean the in-focus trees are in front of the blurfos?

F.Y.I. "Hell of a" is not a unit of measure.

posted on May, 14 2014 @ 01:23 PM
Yes, I think they are insects too. I'm normally a bit wary of excessive Photoshop "analysis", but simply pulling up the contrast does seem to show evidence of translucent/shiny wings that you'd expect from a bug:

And with a difference blend applied:

posted on May, 14 2014 @ 01:27 PM

originally posted by: Uggielicious

I did visit the link and I was not impressed with the video clips because they all show what can be accepted as "bugs" flying close to the camera. The video under discussion here, in my opinion, are not bugs. The 2 objects are at a hell of a distance and like some others claim the objects did not emanate fromtrees but at a distance behind them.

You didn't look at the screen grabs I posted that clearly show the objects IN FRONT of the trees then?

EDIT: Here I have assembled them all into one GIF.

edit on 14-5-2014 by Rob48 because: (no reason given)

posted on May, 14 2014 @ 01:37 PM
Rob48 says in reply to my mention of rods:
[Uggielicious: "The only other aerial creature capable of such speeds are the often vilified "rods"]

[Rob48: "Rods", also known as "insects". Perspective fail, again."

I don't know what you are trying to say but if your short reply is a criticism of the reality of rods, you fail because I agree that rods may be insects but you cannot blow out of the water the super-long, high in the sky rods and I have a few examples of them on videotape. But size is immaterial because when you separate the wheat from the chaff, rods are real and you may have seen only the small ones which can be mistaken with "normal" and known insects.

[Rob48: Edit... OK, I'm now looking at the video on a proper screen, and sure enough you can see the objects well in front of the trees. Here's a rough and ready GIF showing that one of the "UFOs" is clearly visible in front of the trees. - See more at: www.abovetopsecret.com...]

Again, the objects are not coming from nor are they in front of the trees. The GIFs start after the objects are visible because they are so fast that the rate of video frame doesn't show them before they are seen. IOW, if I could videotape the original footage and then play it back frame-by-frame there is a possibility that they could be seen not behind the trees but in the distance behind the trees. Because the video is 2D the depth is lost so the image is flat giving the wrong perspective.

An example of this are the videos showing Popocateptl and the UFOs that are videotaped flying behind the volcano peak but to ATS members the UFOs are diving into the volcano when it is just a matter of perspective, 3D vs. 2D.

edit on 14-5-2014 by Uggielicious because: (no reason given)

posted on May, 14 2014 @ 01:50 PM

originally posted by: Uggielicious

Again, the objects are not coming from nor are they in front of the trees. The GIFs start after the objects are visible because they are so fast that the rate of video frame doesn't show them before they are seen. IOW, if I could videotape the original footage and then play it back frame-by-frame there is a possibility that they could be seen not behind the trees but in the distance behind the trees. Because the video is 2D the depth is lost so the image is flat giving the wrong perspective.

Wrong. Watch the screen capture: you can see the object(s) just to the left of the base of the tall skinny tree at the centre in the first frame, and see them move right and slightly upwards until both are clearly visible in the sky.

Do you still not understand that if you don't know the size of an object, you cannot identify its distance from a 2-dimensional photo or video?
edit on 14-5-2014 by Rob48 because: (no reason given)

posted on May, 14 2014 @ 01:51 PM

you fail because I agree that rods may be insects but you cannot blow out of the water the super-long, high in the sky rods and I have a few examples of them on videotape.

Well hurry up and get your 20 posts and start a thread with these videos.

Really looking forward to seeing these rods high in the sky.

posted on May, 14 2014 @ 01:54 PM

originally posted by: draknoir2

originally posted by: Uggielicious
The 2 objects are at a hell of a distance and like some others claim the objects did not emanate frofromtrees but at a distance behind them.

You mean the in-focus trees are in front of the blurfos?

F.Y.I. "Hell of a" is not a unit of measure.

If the trees were in focus as you claim then it would simpler to see the objects. The trees are not in a clear and sharp focus, and the objects are not since they are hauling. I don't know about the camera used but I doubt that it was set for high-speed photography as the scene being filmed was static and the interest could have been the approaching motorcyclist necessitating a middle of the road focus.

And while "Hell" is not a measure of speed it indicates that whatever is being discussed it is hauling faster than normal. "Hell" can be applied to anything at high speed when the actual speed is not known.

What could help solve the distance versus trees problem would be to have a dub of the original footage which could stand magnification of the trees area. Nothing that has been shown so far by ATS members is solid that the objects are emanating from or in front of the trees, far from it.

edit on 14-5-2014 by Uggielicious because: (no reason given)

posted on May, 14 2014 @ 02:06 PM

originally posted by: Uggielicious

originally posted by: draknoir2

originally posted by: Uggielicious
The 2 objects are at a hell of a distance and like some others claim the objects did not emanate frofromtrees but at a distance behind them.

You mean the in-focus trees are in front of the blurfos?

F.Y.I. "Hell of a" is not a unit of measure.

If the trees were in focus as you claim then it would simpler to see the objects. The trees are not in a clear and sharp focus, and the objects are not since they are hauling. I don't know about the camera used but I doubt that it was set for high-speed photography as the scene being filmed was static and the interest could have been the approaching motorcyclist necessitating a middle of the road focus.

And while "Hell" is not a measure of speed it indicates that whatever is being discussed it is hauling faster than normal. "Hell" can be applied to anything at high speed when the actual speed is not known.

What could help solve the distance versus trees problem would be to have a dub of the original footage which could stand magnification of the trees area. Nothing that has been shown so far by ATS members is solid that the objects are emanating from or in front of the trees, far from it.

So you're saying you have no measurements or calculations to support your assertions? Nothing at all to convince the average person that the blurry objects flying past the camera are actually huge distant objects traveling at incredible speeds from behind the distant treeline?

posted on May, 14 2014 @ 02:17 PM
>>
The 2 objects are at a hell of a distance and like some others claim the objects did not emanate frofromtrees but at a distance behind them.
>>

Astonishing...because I JUST came across a great posting here where without a doubt it was shown the "objects" are IN FRONT of the trees. And this is where the matter is done (for me), any other discussion about potential UFOs etc. is a waste of time since you can not re-bunk an already de-bunked claim : ) The "objects" are 100% in front of the trees and far far closer than whatever the uploader/filmer claims..so it's with an extreme likelihood bugs.
edit on 5/14/2014 by NoRulesAllowed because: (no reason given)

posted on May, 14 2014 @ 03:07 PM
Definitely two small creatures, birds or insects.

posted on May, 14 2014 @ 03:19 PM
Okay, here we go:

Trimmed it to where I had the very first part they show that is not slowed down. Then I zoomed into the area and slowed it down by 75%.

You'll see that in the first part of this video.

Then I zoom in even more, and slowed it down yet another 75%, and you can clearly see that the "objects" are indeed IN FRONT OF THE TREES.

I repeat this part of the video and use the word "Here" for those having a problem seeing the objects.

Use the link to actually go to YouTube, and since I made the video 1080, you can watch it full screen if you desire:

edit: and of course YouTube is being a Butt Head and taking forever to process my video.....come on YouTube...it's only 30 seconds long.....DOH!
edit on 14-5-2014 by eriktheawful because: (no reason given)

posted on May, 14 2014 @ 03:22 PM

originally posted by: eriktheawful

Use the link to actually go to YouTube, and since I made the video 1080, you can watch it full screen if you desire:

I did. They are clearly between the camera and the distant treeline.

posted on May, 14 2014 @ 03:48 PM

originally posted by: Blue Shift

originally posted by: AlphaHawk
Looks exactly like birds would.

My thought was hummingbirds. On some of the still frames you can even see the reflections of the shiny wings.

They only seem to come from beyond the trees because they are lost in the contrast.

They also have the tendency to chase rivals or mates...

posted on May, 14 2014 @ 03:54 PM

But you don't get hummingbirds in New Zealand: they are native to the Americas. I still think that based on the speed they are probably insects rather than birds. Maybe some kind of dragonfly? NZ has some pretty big dragonflies.
edit on 14-5-2014 by Rob48 because: (no reason given)

posted on May, 14 2014 @ 04:23 PM

These are bugs.

The fact that the video is edited to start at a point when the objects are already in frame is a red flag. Just one second of frames earlier and I'm guessing we would see these things move over the road at the same perspective.

Here is a GIF of the first 10 frames of the video:

new topics

top topics

17