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.

 

UFO Video Captured By Homeland Security Analyzed

page: 11
56
<< 8  9  10    12  13  14 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 15 2015 @ 06:13 PM
link   
Guys, I don't see a video. If you could have a functional video link in your post it would help,
and not use non technical stuff like ATSs just guts the web address' - this
appears as meaningless crap to non-believers and even to me as a believer.




posted on Aug, 15 2015 @ 06:37 PM
link   

originally posted by: raymundoko
The only evidence that exists, the video. It disagrees with the assumptions in the report. Did you see how fast that skyscraper was going??

a reply to: Jonjonj



I did not want to accuse you of trolling, I went all out, as did many, to avoid such a statement. And then you said this.
It is a great pity indeed, that the last 8 or so pages have been wasted talking to somebody who has absolutely no respect for the forum.



posted on Aug, 15 2015 @ 06:41 PM
link   
a reply to: DCANDGD

If the OP does not work for you here is another version.






posted on Aug, 15 2015 @ 08:17 PM
link   

originally posted by: Choice777
a reply to: Ectoplasm8

Yes, it's solid. You can't take the crappiest frames and expect to define the object on that. There's video, shoot from a a military grade combat camera.
This thing doesn't allow room for imaginary balloons..the object at times displays a field around it, and at times a shine.
If you interpret that as a hollow object then be my guest and run head first towards a metal door just cause it looks hollow cause it's shiny in the middle.


"Yes, it's solid." Very effective, intelligent, and well thought out counter argument. Just curious though, if I can't take the "crappiest frames and expect to define the object on that", how can you determine it's a solid sphere?

Then again, I'm arguing a point with someone that believes there could be a secret underground UFO base in the area.



posted on Aug, 15 2015 @ 08:35 PM
link   
a reply to: Ectoplasm8

I've determined that by using my eyes, my brain and common sense.
I bet you haven't even looked at the clips, either of them, from star to finish.
There's no way a person with normal vision can say that is a helicopter or balloon or worse yet bunch of balloons.
As a matter of fact i've got perfect vision and perfect color acuity, and my visual cortex is top notch considering i was once at the top of cs1.6 server stats...and that was a decade ago...my vision is absolutely bang on....as a matter of fact in my job i drive night shifts and can spot police cars either way at 50-70 yards in rear view mirror and 100ish yards in the front...keeps them tickets away...i see shades and lettering on the police cars at night that you'd probably miss at 30 yards...and keep in mind that uk police cars have non reflecting decals in the front.
edit on 15-8-2015 by Choice777 because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 15 2015 @ 08:37 PM
link   
a reply to: Choice777



As a matter of fact i've got perfect vision and perfect color acuity, and my visual cortex is top notch considering i was once at the top of cs1.6 server stats...and that was a decade ago...my vision is absolutely top notch

Neat.
How does any of that help determine what is seen in a low quality monochrome video?



posted on Aug, 15 2015 @ 08:39 PM
link   
a reply to: Phage

You need very good color acuity to observe all the shades of gray...it's more work than color images.



posted on Aug, 15 2015 @ 08:40 PM
link   
a reply to: Choice777

It's still a low quality monochrome video.
Visual acuity will not help you see between the pixels.

edit on 8/15/2015 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 15 2015 @ 08:43 PM
link   
a reply to: Phage

Shoot by a military camera on an apache was it ?
This is the best ufo footage ever shot. Military camera, dual or tri band infrared, gps, heading, altitude, stabilized military platform operated by a trained person who's very job is to track threats in the sky(and on the ground)...if this is not enough, then we'll have to wait for them to land in major cities and on presidential lawns.
I see enough in this video to say that it's 100% a solid sphere. And actually balloons would be transparent to flir, which this is.
edit on 15-8-2015 by Choice777 because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 15 2015 @ 08:44 PM
link   
a reply to: Choice777




This is the best ufo footage ever shot.

If I had a dollar for every time I've seen that said...

If this is the best ever you're right, we have a problem.


edit on 8/15/2015 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 15 2015 @ 08:45 PM
link   

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: Choice777




This is the best ufo footage ever shot.

If I had a dollar for every time I've seen that said...

If this is the best ever you're right, we have a problem.


What #ing ever...if this is fake or balloons you need glasses.
You lot of shaky skeptics always ask for clear, smooth stable evidence.
Here it is filmed with a state of the art military helicopter.
You can't dismiss this video with simply ''it isn't so cause i say so''. If that's the best argument you've got, you need a new hobby.
edit on 15-8-2015 by Choice777 because: (no reason given)

edit on 15-8-2015 by Choice777 because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 15 2015 @ 08:56 PM
link   
a reply to: Phage

As one of those whom I have observed on the site that appears to truly have no agenda, I would, as I am sure would many, appreciate your opinion on the video/report Phage.
I am not asking in the hope that you agree or disagree with any particular point of view, that goes without saying.
However, your lack of input regarding the actual footage/opinion intrigues me given that you have clearly been following the thread.




posted on Aug, 15 2015 @ 08:58 PM
link   
a reply to: Jonjonj
From what I've seen of the report, the authors begin with a premise and supply assumptions to support it. Standard fare for UFO "researchers." They "fill in the blanks" an awful lot.

I was unimpressed with the video when it first showed up here and still am.
www.abovetopsecret.com...



edit on 8/15/2015 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 15 2015 @ 09:04 PM
link   
a reply to: Phage

So in your opinion the problem we seem to have is more regarding the report than the video? That is indeed a shame isn't it?
Apart from the "filling in the blanks" regarding speed, which seems to be the only real object of dispute in my opinion, what other blanks have been filled in your opinion?



posted on Aug, 15 2015 @ 09:08 PM
link   

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: Jonjonj
From what I've seen of the report, the authors begin with a premise and supply assumptions to support it. Standard fare for UFO "researchers." They "fill in the blanks" an awful lot.

I was unimpressed with the video when it first showed up here and still am.
www.abovetopsecret.com...




So you've basically said nothing...bla bla i dont like it waa waa.
If the report is made with the aid or under the supervision of the pilot/camera operator then hell yeah it's gonna start by assuming it's a ufo..that guy is trained to spot and identify anything..when nothing matches and the darn thing goes underwater, then he's gonna be entitled to call it whatever he likes.
You can't tell that pilot how to do his job. If his professional opinion is that he was in the presence of a ufo, then i'll take his side, not yours which equals an armchair helicopter warrior.
edit on 15-8-2015 by Choice777 because: (no reason given)

edit on 15-8-2015 by Choice777 because: (no reason given)



edit on 15-8-2015 by Choice777 because: (no reason given)


ps: gov disinfo agents are weaksauce these days...pfff...they probably recruit amongst the hobos.
edit on 15-8-2015 by Choice777 because: (no reason given)

edit on 15-8-2015 by Choice777 because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 15 2015 @ 09:26 PM
link   
a reply to: Jonjonj


So in your opinion the problem we seem to have is more regarding the report than the video?
No more problem with one than the other. The video shows nothing particularly unusual that I can see and the report relies on the assumption that it does then takes it from there.


Apart from the "filling in the blanks" regarding speed, which seems to be the only real object of dispute in my opinion, what other blanks have been filled in your opinion?
The claim that the object submerges and then returns to flight. I don't see it.



posted on Aug, 15 2015 @ 09:30 PM
link   
a reply to: Choice777



If the report is made with the aid or under the supervision of the pilot/camera operator

Was it? I didn't see anything in the report about the pilot/camera operator aiding or supervising the writing of the report. Can you point that part out for me? From what I can tell, it's all second hand information.




edit on 8/15/2015 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 15 2015 @ 09:47 PM
link   

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: Jonjonj


So in your opinion the problem we seem to have is more regarding the report than the video?
No more problem with one than the other. The video shows nothing particularly unusual that I can see and the report relies on the assumption that it does then takes it from there.


Apart from the "filling in the blanks" regarding speed, which seems to be the only real object of dispute in my opinion, what other blanks have been filled in your opinion?
The claim that the object submerges and then returns to flight. I don't see it.


Thank you for your opinion and your time. Herein lies one of, but not the only, cornerstones of the debate.
To me it seems that the object does submerge, and as such is hard to explain in everyday terms.
Subjectivity.





edit on 15-8-2015 by Jonjonj because: prosaic...umm



posted on Aug, 15 2015 @ 09:54 PM
link   
a reply to: Ectoplasm8

If the Mylar or latex of the ballon is warmer due to heat from being in the sun, so would Helium or Hydrogen inside, therefore, the "balloons" would be rising, not falling.

The pinkinsh to reddish light would not be seen on FLIR, it is merely a grayscale of heat, as you can tell by all other structures and heat in the area.

If the pilots of the plane could not identify a cluster of balloons, what good are they as pilots? Would they mistake birds as B-2 bombers? Would they mistake a kite as a hovering craft? No. You honestly think a pilot and experienced videographer would not recognize balloons, and consdier them a threat?

The "balloons" did not travel with the wind as it made a circle in form of several straight lines and during this time the wind never changed direction. See my posts and the report for image of craft traveling on RADAR.

Because the pictures you posted of the craft look like pods, or four small orbs connected with oneanother does not prove it is balloons. It could be a craft consisting of four seperate orbs that can seperate at any given time. There also does not have to be any living being inside of them if they are spacecraft. They could easily be drones or robotically controlled given their size. Think of our advancement in robotics and drones and now consider what an advanced species could have. Much less dangerous that way if it were to be shot down. And if under fire could break into 4 seperate entiteis and go under water. Which explains why it split in two when it did in fact go under water. Show me a video of it floating above water and I will back down, as that would happen if it were a balloon.



Can you prove this was a cluster of balloons? No. If so, write a paper on why it is and disprove all records disproving the opposite theory. If not then continue being a disinfo scab.



posted on Aug, 15 2015 @ 09:57 PM
link   
a reply to: iDope




If the pilots of the plane could not identify a cluster of balloons, what good are they as pilots?

How do you know they didn't? I see no statements from them.


edit on 8/15/2015 by Phage because: (no reason given)



new topics

top topics



 
56
<< 8  9  10    12  13  14 >>

log in

join