It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

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

Thank you.

 

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

 

Giant UFO over Kibbutz Hatzor Isreal (1996)

page: 2
18
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 25 2014 @ 01:11 PM
link   
Ha!




posted on Dec, 25 2014 @ 07:26 PM
link   

originally posted by: Bloodydagger
Has anyone seen this video before? Anyone have any thoughts?


I dug into this case a couple of years ago and concluded it was just a person silhouetted against a window

In the second half of the video the footage appears to be a building illumined by an outdoor light.
edit on 2014-12-25 by Xtraeme because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 25 2014 @ 08:30 PM
link   
a reply to: Xtraeme

Thanks for the reply! My only problem with the "illuminated building" theory, is that they would have seen it every night and not just these two nights in particular. Its stated that it was gone after night two. The only way its a true building, is if its a hoax. Otherwise, I don't think this is a genuine case of mistaken identity where a building is concerned, because they would have seen it nightly. It wouldn't of just been "gone" after a couple of nights.....unless the building was tore down.

edit on 25-12-2014 by Bloodydagger because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 26 2014 @ 02:11 AM
link   
a reply to: Bloodydagger
I dunno, in xtraemes video it reaallly looks like a building in the distance... I mean its not even moving, the camera is moving. Im still of my first opinion, holographic projection of the temple, from that website.

But even simpler, it might be a regular building that looked strange. More than once ive filmed normal things that looked abnormal, prank my friends



posted on Dec, 26 2014 @ 03:08 AM
link   
a reply to: Ridhya

Well, its mentioned that whatever it was, was sitting stationary in the sky and not moving.

I'm leaning toward it being a hoax too, but somewhat tentatively since I haven't seen any evidence that is the smoking gun aimed at hoax yet.

And the only reason that I am saying possible hoax, is because I have no damn clue what I am looking at, LOL

edit on 26-12-2014 by Bloodydagger because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 26 2014 @ 03:26 AM
link   
Thanks for revisiting this one, one of my favorit ufo videos of all time. It have that alien feeling to it



posted on Dec, 26 2014 @ 03:31 AM
link   
a reply to: Spacespider

Welcome!


The first time I ever saw this footage, it gave me the creeps. It has a very eerie vibe to it. No other UFO footage has made me feel that way. The video is so bizarre.



posted on Dec, 26 2014 @ 09:47 AM
link   
a reply to: Bloodydagger

Third video. I'm sure I'm not he only one who sees this, but it very clearly appears to be venting smoke or exhaust through the top portion.

If we can imagine this as a tiny part of a much larger craft that was capable of unveiling itself in smaller portions, perhaps it was necessary to unhide this particular region of the craft in order to vent itself in an emergency.



posted on Dec, 26 2014 @ 09:50 AM
link   

originally posted by: Xtraeme

originally posted by: Bloodydagger
Has anyone seen this video before? Anyone have any thoughts?


I dug into this case a couple of years ago and concluded it was just a person silhouetted against a window

In the second half of the video the footage appears to be a building illumined by an outdoor light.


"I concluded something"

Well hell, thanks for the innovative and thought provoking analysis and summary conclusion!

You can see why pseudo-skeptics are a flood of fools on this forum. The rationale among your types is "I can't figure out what it is so it must be a fake".

Not very compelling but with enough numbskulls it makes for subversive *opinions* disinformation.



posted on Dec, 26 2014 @ 06:29 PM
link   
a reply to: yourignoranceisbliss
You really have the nerve to call him a fool and a numbskull? Do you realise the irony that you cant figure it out either and conclude its a spacecraft?

You said it " very clearly appears to be venting smoke". There is nothing clear about this video.



posted on Dec, 26 2014 @ 06:36 PM
link   
a reply to: Ridhya

Exactly. I don't even know what the hell im looking at when viewing the thing. I have looked at it numerous times too......



posted on Dec, 26 2014 @ 06:55 PM
link   
My question is, if it were just a building illuminated by lights, then why did no one from the Kibbutz ever come forward and say "that's just a building idiots! It's right there! *points*"? Why didn't someone else film it at night, or in the day. I mean, if it's a building it's not like it was going anywhere. Should have been easy to disprove. Everyone living in the Kibbutz would have seen this on a nightly basis.



posted on Dec, 26 2014 @ 07:07 PM
link   
a reply to: Charizard

Yep, Ive been saying that too. It being as simple as a "building" pretty much assumes that entire village is stupid and gullible and just not understanding........

Unless people think they were all in on it being a hoax.

I mean, as you point out there, if it was really a building, someone from there would have came forward saying hey, this is what it is **points in the direction of the building**

And if it was a building, its a building that they have seen a thousand times. Why was it only illuminated on those two nights like that? They say it was "gone" on night three. And if it was a building that stayed illuminated like that, it would have been something that they were familiar with looking at. Surely those people in the village were not directional challenged and would have been like "hey, we are looking at Bob's house over there, that's not a craft" - Multiple people seen it, whatever "it" was.

...these are the reasons why I have a hard time buying the building theory.
edit on 26-12-2014 by Bloodydagger because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 26 2014 @ 08:00 PM
link   
It looks like a flying outhouse. Or a kids bouncy house. So it just stayed in one spot for 3 days/nights and one could get a professional camera recording? That fact alone makes it highly suspect. There should have been hundreds and hundreds of sightings and professional pictures.



posted on Dec, 26 2014 @ 08:10 PM
link   
a reply to: StoutBroux

Nights, not days. Was never there during the day. This was also back in the mid 90s where people didn't have cells phones or cameras at the ready like they do today. Besides, this was over some goat village over there in Israel. Not exactly a place where technology is present, LOL. Surprising it was filmed at all...............

edit on 26-12-2014 by Bloodydagger because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 26 2014 @ 08:13 PM
link   
I have my doubts with this one, the images seem far too clear, especially for that zoom in the second one and there is no other reference-able objects. There's also quite a lot of artifacting appearing ion the videos which makes it tricky to discern what is going on outside of this oddly cubed object.

It's interesting, but you would think you would see some hazing from the clouds/atmosphere or at least some stars if a camera was able to pick this up. Similar to why you need a long exposure to pick up stars for astrophotography



posted on Dec, 26 2014 @ 08:17 PM
link   
a reply to: constant_thought

If the images were clear as you say, then we'd have some kind of idea about what it is we are seeing. Ive watched the video(s) numerous times and I have yet to figure out what it is. In fact, I don't think anyone can say what it is with 100% certainty.

Remember, its stated that the illuminated portion of this object only represents 5-7% of its actual size. So whatever it is, its huge. So perhaps its size is blocking out a lot of the background. In some of the videos, it actually does show some lights toward the back end of the object.

edit on 26-12-2014 by Bloodydagger because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 26 2014 @ 08:43 PM
link   
a reply to: Bloodydagger

The problem is there is a lot of ghosting in the distance shots which could attribute to the extra size of this object. The distance shots are also cut in with these close ups which is telling that it was shot at a different time what with the different tint of sky.

On the dark background shots the speed of which the zoom operates on this 14 year old camera is also rather quick and clear for something i assume is very distant.

With the close ups it seems more like this is an object about 20~ meters away dotted in with some regular footage, perhaps of a bright star or planet at sunrise/sunset (hence blue tint of sky) with camera ghosting
edit on 26/12/2014 by constant_thought because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 26 2014 @ 09:00 PM
link   

originally posted by: yourignoranceisbliss


Thanks for the chuckle. It's not every day that I am called a pseudo-skeptic. In the future if you want someone to explain something to you because you have a hard time imagining what it is they described, just ask for clarification.


The rationale among your types is "I can't figure out what it is so it must be a fake".


Nope, but just because I find it amusing- I guess the opposite then must be true? "If I can't figure out what I am looking at it must be entirely new and unknown!" Sounds about equally ludicrous doesn't it? Let me throw in a visual to help you to decide where this case belongs:



The only way to figure out whether a UFO case is worth looking at is if you put in some legwork: dig up newspaper articles, contact the original witnesses, basically do whatever you can to figure out whether the material is even remotely truthful in the first place. I found zilch in my search that convinced me the sighting ever happened.

Odd considering the incident was supposed to have been witnessed by over 60 people, ya know? You'd think it would have more press like the mass sighting in 1954 at Fiorentina's Stadio Artemio Franchi, but nope. Nothing.

Despite the fact that there is only a single alleged source to corroborate the backstory, and no one knows where Amichai Shouah is, let's look at the footage and see what we can do with it. Watching a bunch of multi-colored rectangular lights bounce all over around the screen isn't making our job any easier. So the first order of business is stabilizing the footage.

Keep in mind we don't know if the camera is oriented towards the sky, the ground, focused on something close, something far away. Bottom line, we have no idea where the camera is pointing.

Now what do we see?



In the leftmost of the three panels we see a black round thing in the middle of the left "window".



Beneath the black round thing we notice the coloration is different from the surrounding light gray colors.



It actually looks slightly skin-toned and we can see an irregular shape seems to go between the two windows in the stabilized video.



And what are the two rails on the longer rectangular section?



By god, it looks like a person standing in a window next to a screen door!



Now watch the full footage all the way through and you should be able to figure out what the other lights are slightly to the right.

Optical illusions are always tricky. There was a great photographic case from 1870 that took a long time to figure out. Sadly, like the 1870 photo, this case more than likely falls full smack in the hoax category.
edit on 2014-12-26 by Xtraeme because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 26 2014 @ 09:33 PM
link   
a reply to: Xtraeme

But this all falls back to the "it" being a "building" theory. Since multiple witnesses seen it, then why didn't any of them point out that they were looking at a building? And if it was a building, then its something that they were familiar with and seen it on a nightly basis. Its stated that "it" was not there any longer after the second night. How do you explain that? Was the "building" tore down? Or was that "building" only ever illuminated on those two nights in its existence?

Us assuming that this "thing" is a building pretty much assumes that everyone looking at it is stupid and cannot comprehend the fact that they are looking at something that they have seen many nights before.........

Surely one of the multiple witnesses would have been like, "Hey, that is Bobs house, that's no UFO!"

Unless you're under the assumption that everyone involved in it is behind it being a hoax. That is the only way I'll personally buy into the "building" theory. I refuse to believe that out of the multiple people who seen it, that not a single one of them recognized it as a building if it was in fact, a building. The reason I say that is because if it was a building, then its something that they are familiar with and have seen it many a night before this "incident".

edit on 26-12-2014 by Bloodydagger because: (no reason given)




top topics



 
18
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join