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: 7
56
<< 4  5  6    8  9  10 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 13 2015 @ 07:58 PM
link   

originally posted by: funbox
a reply to: Ectoplasm8

a cloud ?

funbox



I actually giggled.





posted on Aug, 13 2015 @ 07:59 PM
link   
a reply to: fockewulf190

Amazing. What is particularly note worthy is the article
states that according to DHS it is not any known aircraft or
natural phenomenon. That's as pretty close to disclosure
I think as they have ever gotten before.

Thanks for the post.

Rebel 5



posted on Aug, 13 2015 @ 08:03 PM
link   
a reply to: Jonjonj

total ambivalence ,funny and yet at the same time strangely disconcerting

amused to the point where I missed the page turn, then noticed your post


funbox



posted on Aug, 13 2015 @ 08:23 PM
link   
a reply to: iDope

That entire quote is inaccurate.



posted on Aug, 13 2015 @ 08:26 PM
link   
a reply to: rebelv

Wrong, DHS said it was a balloon...the report lied if they claimed DHS didn't know what it was.



posted on Aug, 13 2015 @ 09:17 PM
link   

originally posted by: funbox
a reply to: Ectoplasm8

a cloud ?

funbox


An unusually lucid response funbox. Care to follow that up with explaining why this "object" disappears on both land and water? Magic underwater and underland abilities I guess.

Also explain why it suspiciously looks like a group of balloons in the photos below?

Maybe Gazoo?



posted on Aug, 13 2015 @ 09:41 PM
link   
Has anyone in this thread actually read the report?

I'm amazed that folks here can in watching a clip perhaps 2 times (some once.. some not even finishing it).. can come up to conclusive results on what the object actually was. 6 folks with plenty of scientific history spending 1000 man hours, debunked by 7 minutes of watching a video. Amazing!



posted on Aug, 13 2015 @ 09:44 PM
link   
a reply to: fleabit

I read the entire report. It made me laugh out loud several times.



posted on Aug, 13 2015 @ 09:48 PM
link   

originally posted by: raymundoko
a reply to: fleabit

I read the entire report. It made me laugh out loud several times.


Honestly? What parts made you laugh literally out loud. I'd love to see those bits.

I also doubt you actually read the entire report and actually tried to comprehend it.



posted on Aug, 13 2015 @ 09:56 PM
link   
1) This appears to be a FLIR Camera with settings that show heat as dark signatures. Therefore, it looks like it is a warm object. 2) I do not believe it splits, as this phenomenon occurs over the water; I believe it is a reflection on the water of the heat that the FLIR is picking up.

Would UFOs use a system of propulsion where much energy is lost via heat? I tend to doubt they would.



posted on Aug, 13 2015 @ 11:11 PM
link   

originally posted by: raymundoko
a reply to: iDope

Those aren't weather balloons...


Well there are people saying the object is a balloon, so I am pondering at what type super intelligent balloon it is? It is obviously traveling fast, like through hurricane weather fast, not just meandering around and waiting for a gust to push it one way or another. Maybe swamp gas moves like that? It started from the water and ended up back in the water, though not a swamp, it must be similar [sarc]?



posted on Aug, 13 2015 @ 11:15 PM
link   

originally posted by: TheBuffather
1) This appears to be a FLIR Camera with settings that show heat as dark signatures. Therefore, it looks like it is a warm object. 2) I do not believe it splits, as this phenomenon occurs over the water; I believe it is a reflection on the water of the heat that the FLIR is picking up.

Would UFOs use a system of propulsion where much energy is lost via heat? I tend to doubt they would.


You doubt what an alien technology would use? Do you know much about alien technology? How do you know much energy is lost via heat? Because it produces heat? Maybe there is so much energy available that mere heat loss doesn't matter. The object in broad daylight was viewed as having a pinkish hue btw.



posted on Aug, 13 2015 @ 11:19 PM
link   

originally posted by: fleabit
Has anyone in this thread actually read the report?

I'm amazed that folks here can in watching a clip perhaps 2 times (some once.. some not even finishing it).. can come up to conclusive results on what the object actually was. 6 folks with plenty of scientific history spending 1000 man hours, debunked by 7 minutes of watching a video. Amazing!


The only people here that are debunking it from what I have seen are people that think it is a balloon, lol, seriously a balloon? I read most of the report and have viewed the video at least 6 times and I still believe it submerges in the water, opposing many voices here, but hey, that is what I see. the heat signature in nearly totally lost once it goes under but it is noticeable for about a second and dissapears and then the camera follows the percieved motion fore a few seconds and it reappears just as hot as it went under.

When a 160+ page report by scientists go into every detail imaginable and cannot conclude what it is, noone on this thread will either.



posted on Aug, 13 2015 @ 11:21 PM
link   

originally posted by: Ectoplasm8

originally posted by: funbox
a reply to: Ectoplasm8

a cloud ?

funbox


An unusually lucid response funbox. Care to follow that up with explaining why this "object" disappears on both land and water? Magic underwater and underland abilities I guess.

Also explain why it suspiciously looks like a group of balloons in the photos below?

Maybe Gazoo?


Those are some hot ass balloons! As I have stated, helium balloons don't travel like that and no balloon unless it was heat propelled would be that warm.



posted on Aug, 13 2015 @ 11:32 PM
link   

originally posted by: Jonjonj
a reply to: gortex

Surely if the report is to be refuted it must be done with the same vigour as that with which it was put together, right?
Where is the evidence that refutes the data presented in the report?

Once that is presented, and the report is proven to be erroneous, then, and only then, can the video evidence be reassessed.

So then, two steps: Provide evidence the report is incorrect and then provide another report to explain the anomaly.

Not so hard I imagine for those interested in the subject.

Until that point this remains, to all intents and purposes, quite clearly a UFO.




God doesn't believe in science so neither do I!
Fallen angel riding a balloon to live on the Puerto Rican beaches and impregnate senoritas and then impregnate the babies into the U.S. in order to fulfill the Christ Prophecy. That is a fact [sarc] but I will write a 160 page paper about the story and it will be very believable in order to give these balloon people a fictitious story for them to add on to Revelations.



posted on Aug, 13 2015 @ 11:32 PM
link   

originally posted by: Jonjonj
a reply to: gortex

Surely if the report is to be refuted it must be done with the same vigour as that with which it was put together, right?
Where is the evidence that refutes the data presented in the report?

Once that is presented, and the report is proven to be erroneous, then, and only then, can the video evidence be reassessed.

So then, two steps: Provide evidence the report is incorrect and then provide another report to explain the anomaly.

Not so hard I imagine for those interested in the subject.

Until that point this remains, to all intents and purposes, quite clearly a UFO.




God doesn't believe in science so neither do I!
Fallen angel riding a balloon to live on the Puerto Rican beaches and impregnate senoritas and then impregnate the babies into the U.S. in order to fulfill the Christ Prophecy. That is a fact [sarc] but I will write a 160 page paper about the story and it will be very believable in order to give these balloon people a fictitious story for them to add on to Revelations.



posted on Aug, 13 2015 @ 11:36 PM
link   

originally posted by: raymundoko
a reply to: iDope

That entire quote is inaccurate.


The entire quote is quoted from the report, I have checked the report and read most of it, yes those quotes are accurate. DHS may have said that it was a balloon as a cover up but that doesn't explain every other area surrounding this subject. Why would it delay flights? Why would DHS first claim that it came out of the water and started flying, which is when they started tracking it, then it entered back into the water after 3 minutes or so. What idiot would actually believe that it is a balloon? Show me a video of balloons acting this way, not even a heat image, and I may believe it. But then get a a heat image of a balloon to back that up and then there you go, disproven.



posted on Aug, 14 2015 @ 12:10 AM
link   
Weird huh? Still, it wasn't all that fast. And it flew in almost a straight line, which THEIRS never do . My guess would be a terrestrial aircraft of some type. a reply to: fockewulf190



posted on Aug, 14 2015 @ 12:14 AM
link   

originally posted by: iDope
When a 160+ page report by scientists go into every detail imaginable and cannot conclude what it is, noone on this thread will either.


Yeah, quite the unbiased clear-minded group of scientists. Investigated by a group that call themselves the Scientific Coalition of UFOlogy. Can't go wrong there.
The video is first given to Daina Chaviano who happens to be a field investigator for MUFON in Florida. She then contacts Morgan Beall who is the lead investigator of the MUFON chapter for Florida. Then Robert Powell was along to help author the paper and has been the director of research for MUFON since 2007. Hmmmm... is there a running theme here?

Every time you mention "scientists", inferring it's a group unbiased investigators, either lead or follow it with "many affiliated with MUFON." I think it's important for clarity.



posted on Aug, 14 2015 @ 12:26 AM
link   
its hard to say




top topics



 
56
<< 4  5  6    8  9  10 >>

log in

join