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

Unidentified lights filmed over New Hampshire

page: 3
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in


posted on Sep, 27 2015 @ 01:06 PM
a reply to: FutureThinker

You really want to post another Youtube video as proof this is false? Did you bother to watch it, the debunk I mean, where he goes on about sending his spirit guide back to block the camera? Whatever dude, whatever...

posted on Sep, 27 2015 @ 01:43 PM
Interesting...however, I would think it is a lens flare. Since you can only see it through a camera (keep in mind others with phones with IR filters saw it), and since it is acting the way it is. On the other hand, it stays in the same general area.

posted on Sep, 27 2015 @ 02:51 PM
Some of you do stretch the mind sometimes. Without to much difficulty you can see it's a hoax. Look at the three second mark and the fourteen second mark when he drop the camera down slightly you can see the same "orbs" reflecting off the surface he is using. He realises he'd filmed too low and immediately lifts the camera and doesn't lower it again.

posted on Sep, 27 2015 @ 02:56 PM
Hello Everyone,

This is Mike Pittaro; I learned through a close friend that the video (but not the photos) my wife and I took on 9-21-2015 appeared on this message board.

I would like to state a few things (if I may) to the good people of Above Top Secret to (hopefully) clear the air a bit. But instead of delving into the story itself (which has spread like wild fire to my dismay), I'd like to address the circulation of the story itself and our photos/videos:

1.) The photos and video were never intended for the general public. They were shared with close friends on Facebook because we both (my wife and I) felt the event was amazing, but spooky at the same time, and felt our close friends would be interested in what we filmed.) Even now, we do not know if a close friend was responisible or if a friend of a friend was, but someone other than my wife and I contacted the media about the video and photos we caught on 9-21-2015. My wife and I live a very quiet life together, and we DID NOT want ANY of the footage to reach the public. Quite frankly, I don't want to be known as some crazy 'NH Man That Chases lights in the sky.' In fact, I don't want to be known in any capacity regarding the event, but I also know that isn't possible considering the circumstances.

2. My wife is a photographer hobbist, and 9-21-2015 wasn't the first time she has taken photos of the skyline at the Target/Best Buy mall at dusk. (She has many backups spanning years of photos that have been taken of the skyline at the Target/Best Buy mall, and NOTHING out of the ordinary has ever been captured.)

3. A local Concord, NH newspaper (known as the Concord Patch) covered the story first, and later updated the story in the their comments section stating that 7 additional witnesses had come forward, claiming to not only have seen the same objects my wife and I captured on 9-21-2015, but none of them were anywhere near the Target/Best Buy mall or any lights. (I can't confirm or deny whether any of the the 7 witnesess provided the Concord Patch/Journalist with any photos and/or videos; people will have to ask him, I would imagine.

I don't know if this site allows attatchments for newly created accounts (I know some message boards have restrictions), but I will provide a screenshot of the journalist's update to our story. I will also provide the link to the actual article and comment section for the good people here at Above Top Secret to read.

4. I have NEVER stated publicly what I believed those objects were/are; In fact, I may never actually do it. I made this decision because I can't, with any certainty, say if they were Government Black Project drones, a strange light phenomenon, Santa Clause, or even UFOs/ extraterrestrial. Anything being said right now, whether it be message boards or on public media, is sheer speculation by those reporting on the event, and not from my my wife and I. Which brings me to my next point...

5. We never gave permission to CBS (or ANYONE else for that matter) to publish our photos and videos of the event. I am real Interested in knowing where that poster's information came from about my wife and I getting paid $1000 from CBS for our video or us seeking fame; it's complete, utter bull#. And if if that message board user, Game Over Man, even BOTHERED to research the story, he would have known that my wife takes photos of sunsets ALL the time, and the sunset that evening was incredibly beautiful. The panoramic HD photo she (my wife) first took of the sunset (which is on our Flickr account) shows the object, which prompted us to start filming (and me asking those around us to confirm the object in the sky with their own cellphones.). The original article from the Concord Patch mentions this, along with the 7 new witnesses that have recently come forward in the past few days (see 3.)

6.) I have been approached by TV stations (the first being WBZ Boston; their offer was posted to my Facebook page in the comment section regarding John Boehner's resignation from Congress.) I politely turned down the TV interview (like all the others I have recently received) because 1.) I don't want to be known as some kook that chases lights in the sky and 2) I love my family too much to put them through the stress and defamation this crap has ALREADY caused without my permission. I also felt that going on National TV served NO purpose (not to mention making matters worse for me and my family).

For the record, I want to say that I don't believe UFO experincers and/or believers are kooks; I just wanted to keep our event personal and quiet so the 'other' half of the population wouldn't start with the name calling, the defamation, etc., against me and my loved ones, but unfourtanetly a few individuals (not from here, I believe) have been hellbent on making it a reality for us.

I really don't have much else to say. While my Facebook page is private (as I already explained - my wife and I live quiet lives together), anyone wanting to send me a friend request there to see how all these events unfolded are welcome to.

Thank you all for giving me the oppurtunity to speak and to clear the air a bit.

Kind Regards,
Mile P.
Concord, NH

Original story from Concord Patch:

(NOTE: I can't to seem to add a photo attachement from my phone, but the journalist that mentions the 7 additional witnesses writes about it in the comment section of the article)

Edited for spelling.
edit on 27-9-2015 by MikePittaro74 because: (no reason given)

posted on Sep, 27 2015 @ 03:11 PM
a reply to: MikePittaro74

You want to explain your youtube page Planet Nibiru? You seem like you a UFO enthusiast on an agenda and not a random person who had an unusual encounter.

Most importantly

How come you completely left out the most important part of how the orbs left the scene? Because you left that out the whole thing however you faked it, screams HOAX.

Every single UFO claim that does not provide the details/footage of the craft disappearing or flying off at a ridiculous rate of speed, has always proven to be a hoax or an identified object. Every single time.

This is amazing you created an account to defend your "encounter"
edit on 27-9-2015 by game over man because: (no reason given)

posted on Sep, 27 2015 @ 03:24 PM

off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


posted on Sep, 27 2015 @ 03:25 PM
a reply to: MikePittaro74

Thanks for the reply! I'm glad you could give us the good information. You & your wife's hobby sounds very interesting.

I really think this is a light polarization/atmospheric phenomena. Thanks for sharing.

Some of the best things that happened to me happened because things happened differently than the way I intended.

Don't be discouraged by trolls. Just ignore them

posted on Sep, 27 2015 @ 03:34 PM
For 15 years there have been sane and highly respected military officials, aircraft controllers and many others who have come forward. Yet, it seems mainstream media ignores it all for the most part.

You'd think when military officials responsible for our nuclear sites blow the whistle on UFOs tampering with our nukes and shutting them down it would be worthy of concern.

Obviously, the government already knows what they are. Why would the Pentagon not be concerned with our nuclear sites being compromised by Unidentified Flying Objects?

I'm sure 90% of you have seen the testimony before, but I'll post it anyways.

posted on Sep, 27 2015 @ 03:44 PM

off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


posted on Sep, 27 2015 @ 03:53 PM
a reply to: Bicent76

Yes I did; I said I'm 'now' being accused of owning some Youtube account. But if it makes you and your friend feel better, the answer is 'No, I don't own that Youtube channel, whatever it is'.

I could easily accuse one of you for creating it; see how that works?

Edit: I like how you were sent in as his replacement.

edit on 27-9-2015 by MikePittaro74 because: (no reason given)

posted on Sep, 27 2015 @ 03:55 PM
a reply to: MikePittaro74

I don't care just make sense for me please and I will try to understand.. Unfortunately thou, you will not change my mind or anyone else's either on a conspiracy forum.


posted on Sep, 27 2015 @ 03:55 PM
The youtube video has a maximum of 240p resolution. In 2015? Must be some ancient phone

posted on Sep, 27 2015 @ 04:08 PM
a reply to: PrinceDreamer

That was obviously a tongue-in-cheek joke. I think the debunk video pretty much proves this UFO is nothing more than lens flare. Did you notice how the guy in the original video said it couldn't be seen by the naked eye but then later points his camera at a lady and says "she sees it too"? How could she see it without looking at it through her phone and how could he have seen it to begin with in order to video it?

Sounds like you're in denial to me. This is either a blatant hoax or the guy actually believes it isn't lens flare. Either way though, it's lens flare and not a UFO.

posted on Sep, 27 2015 @ 04:12 PM
a reply to: 3NL1GHT3N3D1

exactly.... Not sure what the agenda is, sounds like advertising or something... I might look back in here to get a chuckle thou.

edit on 9/27/15 by Hefficide because: (no reason given)

posted on Sep, 27 2015 @ 04:18 PM
a reply to: Bicent76

I didn't realize you had a reading comprehension problem.

I came here to straighten out the misinformation that people like you were spreading, so it doesn't matter to me if you or your friends validate the facts given or not.

Really. Well, since Above Top Secret is a conspiracy site, it looks like this 'conspiracy' was just given a seift kick in the pants. And no, ignoring the facts provided (and putting your fingers in your ears and yelling loudly) does nothing but make you (and your friends) look like uneducated children behind keyboards, but hey - I digress.

edit on 27-9-2015 by MikePittaro74 because: Spelling

posted on Sep, 27 2015 @ 04:27 PM
a reply to: MikePittaro74

well to prevent a thread drift, I am going to end this strange communication. I can comprehend quite well, you calling me a government troll, for not believing you, and questioning your logic associated with images you and your partner say is a UFO, that can only been seen on your phone video capture device. Yet it does sound logical for it to be a reflection on your camera from a street light.

Why you care so much about what I think should not matter, and perhaps you should take another look at your ufo footage logically because the reflection explanation makes sense to me. That does not make me a government troll, calling me that because I am trying to understand what your trying to say about your video is not logical it is emotional.

In any case thanks for posting the video it is interesting but their is a logical explanation for it. That should make you feel better emotionally not accuse people of being trolls. If you really think it is a UFO so be it. I am not going to call you anything demeaning I will just suggest to take a closer look I suppose.
edit on 9 27 2015 by Bicent76 because: (no reason given)

posted on Sep, 27 2015 @ 04:27 PM
a reply to: MikePittaro74

Would you consider the fact that it is lens flare? The lights in the sky seem to line up with the light in the bottom right of the video perfectly, same goes for the photo. When the guy passes in front of the camera and blocks the street light, the portion of the street light that is blocked disappears and reappears in the sky after he passes by.

I'm not calling you a liar, I just believe you may have seen a lens flare and attributed it to something else.

posted on Sep, 27 2015 @ 04:37 PM
It's nice of you to arrive here. But if you really are the original person, do wonder if we can get the truth out of you. I'm only here for the video analysis, nothing else, sorry. The following is all based on frames & footage you supplied, not any of the testimony. I am personally wondering what kind of "game" is being played here, whether there's an aim/agenda or simple innocent lack of understanding of camera functionality on your behalf.

Firstly, let's note the other lens flare reflections going on in the video. These lights are clear in the start of the video and pretty much for the remainder, often seemingly in front of the leaves/branches:

Moments later, two new lights appear on the roof of a house. That happens because it's a reflection or a lens flare, not because lights suddenly appeared on a roof:

There one minute gone the next. Without paying attention to the UFO, we already get plenty of info to show that your lens is experiencing flare from, presumably car lights. Those two "roof" lights move up, and seconds later a car is heard passing.

As pointed out in the debunk video, there's also the strange way you say "I'm going to move so the light isn't shining on it" or what not and simply zoom in, yet the light (behind the tree) is still clearly visible for the rest of the video so was never blocked out. As mentioned, zooming in does not remove the glare on a lens. Those original lights are still there sitting in front of the branches & leaves.

To the untrained eye, it looks like the "UFO" is within the clouds. But to the trained eye, you can see that it's moving around in relation to the lens. It's hard to explain and show in detail but if you look closely at this GIF, especially in the first second or so, you'll notice the "UFO" is skipping about - it's not sitting in the clouds, it's moving left, right, up, down, ever so slightly because it's position sits in relation to the light and the lens, not because it's positioned in the clouds:

(May take a moment to load, can't get the 6mb filesize smaller sorry)

I may not have extracted the best part of the footage to show what I mean, but anyone can download and look through it for themselves.

There's a part earlier in the video where you jolt the camera, and the object disappears. If it was really up there, it shouldn't disappear in a jolt movement, yet it does, again, another strong signal of it being flare/reflection.

There are other inconsistencies but as the others say, we all know its lens flare so there's really no point persuing this further. No matter who or what else claims to have seen it, the facts are in the video.

As I say, I hope it's innocent confusion rather than agenda. Hopefully you yourself can understand how little everything links together other than in the direction of lens flare. All I'm doing is helping try prove it's lens flare, not trying to attack or anger. Surely if you/partner are photographers, you can appreciate other photographers spotting certain patterns and traits of the technology and artifacts that cameras can create. Or, I suppose, you can just get moody and angry, I'm not too bothered

edit on 27-9-2015 by markymint because: (no reason given)

posted on Sep, 27 2015 @ 04:58 PM
I dont know if this is real or not, but what I do know is that I have a sudden urge to buy a video camera from best buy

posted on Sep, 27 2015 @ 05:04 PM
a reply to: MikePittaro74

Mike, first let me just say welcome to ATS. I was quite surprised to see that you created an account just to refute claims regarding your (sighting?) experience, and I have to say that from a personal perspective, that has earned you a measure of respect from me...all discussion about the validity of your footage aside. As you can imagine, not a lot of people in your situation actually go to these lengths to defend their position to a group of critical strangers and it is, to be perfectly honest, kind of refreshing, so props to you for that.

I must admit to being a tad confused by all of this, though, and have a few questions. First, it seems that you are the author of a page on YouTube called "Planet Nibiru", where you have posted multiple videos of anomalies in our sky, and I am having a hard time reconciling that with your above claims that you did not invite the public into your private life. Can you explain the lack of consistency regarding that claim?

Of course, there are over 7 billion people walking this little planet and it stands to reason that out of those people at least one other person could exist with the same name, in the same general location but, like myself, you have a rather uncommon name that narrows the odds on that quite a bit. So, is that in fact your YouTube channel? If it is, you must realize that such a thing is in complete contradiction with your above statements and as such, casts more than a modicum of doubt on your adamant denial of seeking any publicity for your video.

As far as the CBS spot, are you alleging that they fabricated the details of your interview and the direct quotes that were attributed to you were completely made up? That is a pretty serious allegation, if it's accurate, and I am curious as to whether or not you plan to take legal action against CBS for misrepresenting you in that way; like it or not, it's over and done--you cannot unring a bell, after all--and if they did in fact publish the story without your permission, you may very well have legal recourse against them, should you decide to go that route.

I have been a member of this site for close to four years, but many of my counterparts have been here far longer and are far more knowledgeable on the subject of videography/photography of anomalies in the sky than the rest of us and, even though I do not always agree with what they say, there are a select few of them who have earned my respect enough that when they say something is not right, I pay attention...and at least two of them have been heavily involved in this discussion now for several days.

It was one of them who directly informed me that your video is one of many apparent hoaxes in a collection of footage published on the YouTube channel Planet Nibiru, which is apparently operated by you personally. I must admit that was very disappointing to me; you see, what you captured is strikingly similar to anomalies that I have seen in the sky now for about four years and I was absolutely thrilled to see that you had apparently caught it on video, which I have been unable to do despite numerous attempts.

The reason for that lack of footage is that, for whatever reason, it can be seen by people like myself (I've been unable to discern why only a small number of people are able to see the anomalies as of yet) with the naked eye, but not through the viewfinder of a camera...completely opposite of what you claimed, that it could only be viewed through the camera and not the naked eye. And that is where it all falls apart.

You claim there were seven other people present who witnessed the event as well. I'm having trouble with that because, based on your statements, all seven of those people would have had to have been looking at it through their cameras in order to see it in the first place. The question of how you came to notice it is explained away by your claim that your wife was already filming the sunset when it happened, so you were able to see it via her camera. But the other witnesses? Were they also capturing footage of the sunset then? Because otherwise, logic dictates that they would not have been able to see anything.

It's true that you did not claim that the lights were UFO's, but that is a moot point due to the fact that they do not appear to have been actually flying in the first place. I would also like an answer to the question of why you did not offer more details such as the manner in which the lights disappeared. I do not agree with my fellow ATS-er that:

Every single UFO claim that does not provide the details/footage of the craft disappearing or flying off at a ridiculous rate of speed, has always proven to be a hoax or an identified object. Every single time.

because unless the thing is 100% confirmed to be a known object and 100% irrefutable evidence is presented to support that assertion it is not actually proven at all and "every single time" is an inaccurate blanket generalization, however it is very odd that you didn't mention it...most people include that in the details when they report a sighting.

To summarize, there are just too many things about your sighting that do not add up and that is why it is hard to believe your claims are actually valid. I cannot speak for my fellow ATSers but for me personally, you providing clear answers to these puzzling questions would go a long way toward establishing at least some semblance of credibility for you, and I look forward to seeing your response.

new topics

top topics

<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in