Unidentified lights filmed over New Hampshire

a reply to: lovebeck

Hi Lovebeck,

My wife and I decided to create a Flickr account because our Facebook pages were inundated with requests from people asking to see the video. It was stressful; a lot of people were harrashing us. Since word had gotten out (and If I could find who did it, I'd have a few choice words for them), we decided that making a Flickr account would get all those people off our backs, but it hasn't helped much.


Edit: I just wanted to add that the photos were somehow placed in circulation first. If you want to focus on conspiracy theories, ask why someone would go against the wishes of a couple that wanted to remain silent? It's this kind of attention we were trying to avoid in the first place.

Edit #2: My wife and I will be returning to the Target/Best Buy mall to try and recreate the video. We will be filming at dusk, at the exact same time the event occured (7;07pm). I will post the results here when it happens.

Ive always wondered why these people have the most unsteady hands to date, and why is the object theyre filimg not center? When I film stuff I point the camera at the thing I am recording.

I believe there is life outside of earth, but this video is garbage.

a reply to: SullivanBlack

I was trying to avoid the lamp post (which was to the left of me at the time of filming), that is why the object wasn't centered.

I also moved the camera around to see if the object was actually stationary in the sky or light reflecting off the lense.

Hi there. I've just done my best to not just be an armchair debunker but also to go and try some stuff. I played with bright lights and camera phone lens flare, double and single floodlights, the moon and other ideas.

I am now leaning more towards anomalous. But I have some VERY specific questions that need answering to be certain. Nothing personal, but if you deviate or dodge round the questions I won't be taking the anomalous side for long

1. What compass direction was the UFO? What direction is that? And if you could please confirm the time of original sighting.
2. Is there any chance it could have been the moon through clouds?
3. HOW did you first notice it, what were you doing?

Original article claims not seen by naked eye so Q 2 and 3 are v. important

What did I discover for myself. In my original post I put up pics of those two little dot lights on side of house. Tonight I stood behind a tree with a set of double floodlights behind (the tree, both in front of me - me, tree, lights), and managed to recreate that type of lens flare, which gives credence to those dots being the actual lens flare being created by the lights behind the tree in your vid (which appear to be a set of double floodlights) I can't fully verify that because whilst that worked away from the tree, it didn't work so well with the lights obscured by the tree.

I also discovered that the moon behind a tree creates very funky effects, seemingly dots of lights. I remember seeing this effect on the moon also, behind cloud. I often see the moon rise from my window and have often been fooled and worried about why it looks like dots and streaks. Hence Q2.

In your favor, I don't think you're behind glass. If you were, I'm not sure why we get to see the pavement at the end of each clip. Also in your favor through various motions I could not find any way whatsoever to recreate your effect in video, using lights in front (one to several) and with lights behind me. Tried camera normal vision and night vision, still camera and video camera, front & back cameras.

Moon behind clouds is now top of my list, but I don't understand this admission of "it can't be seen with naked eye" yet there you were randomly filming the sky? The importance of Q3.

I would post up my pics and test vids but they're boring, I wouldn't be asking what I'm asking now if I hadn't made them trust me

Thanks in advance!

You sure Planet Nibiru is not a relative of thridphaseofmoon?

a reply to: Sublimecraft
Oooooh yeah, real good find here my friend. The reactions from the people in the footage (their voices, not them physically in the shot) come off as being genuine. Doesn't appear to be CGI at all, and the scenery reminds me of a plaza that a Best Buy is in by my neck of the woods.
Hm...yes, we should try and seek out the people who took the video, as well as try to be obtain the footage that was taken from the other individual's phone. This is a juicy one for sure. Great post Sublimecraft, I feel intelligent examination and discussion coming.

originally posted by: MikePittaro74
Hey Everyone,

I just want to thank everyone for weighing in on the footage; I really appreciate it. I've been searching through my backup to find the second video I shot, where I stood behind the tree to try and verify whether it was a lense flare from the lamp post. I finally found that video.

The object is still present in the second video (the perspective is different as well), so take it for what it is I guess (i.e glare, a weather phenomenon, etc). The new video has been posted to our Flickr account.

I'm also glad I posted here; I was told that a lot of experts from many different fields frequent here, and getting some kind of answer would be far more likely than anywhere else.

Here's the link to the second video I mentioned earlier:
flic.kr...

Thank you, again; my wife and I appreciate the professional candor and the effort everyone put into analyizing the original
footage.

Edit: added 2nd video URL from Flickr account

I think it is light flare.

I hope that helps. In any case it was an interesting post, to be honest, you were the one there not me, I am just watching a video on my computer. Perhaps you really saw something.. I do not think it is that important to prove to others what you saw. The first thing that comes to mind when you see something like that is to try to prove to everyone it is a UFO, yet sometimes.... That is not the case, nor is it important.

Again thanks for posting, I hope you find closure as well...

a reply to: Sublimecraft

I saw these lights a few years ago at night with my husband. The lights we saw only drifted side to side and downward, that's how these lights appear to me, too. The next day I discovered they were a group of parachuters with flares.

I think that's what these lights are...just not at night.

Just my .02¢

a reply to: Dutchowl

I saw a pattern of two white lights about two years ago, one large and one smaller right behind it. Close enough to seem to be from one craft in that they had the same speed and moved in the same direction. They seemed to be heading straight up into the atmosphere and then accelerated and just vanished. From a speed that wasn't fast enough to be a shooting star but way too fast to be a jet. That was no drone or balloon.

That must have been mind altering, thanks for sharing that. When stuff goes outer limits there is no mistaking it. Couldn't have been a rocket launch and staging, they go across the sky, not "straight up". Accelerating makes it interesting, because thuats not obvious with man made craft. I bet they were totally silent and left no vapor trail, either.

a reply to: SoulSurfer
Hi SoulSurfer. Sorry for the delay, I had to give it my full attention before replying…

Heavy Metal has been refined since we started it back in the day…

Epic rock ballads and heavy, loud was our brain damage back then. Zep, Sabbath, and Rush, ya know? I'm amazed where its gone, not so much into it anymore, but thanks for the journey. Lyrics were cool, too.

This is an interesting sighting. I believe there's likely to be a terrestrial explanation for the lights, but I don't believe Mike has deliberately set out to deceive anyone. Following are some notes regarding questions others have posed regarding the original Facebook upload. I haven't had the chance to view the new footage that Mike posted, however.

1. Tiny video size. Possibly lossy video compression due to way video was uploaded. Mike may have much higher resolution video still on his phone.

2. The interesting elements of the video are the apparently stationary lights located at approx 45 degrees altitude. The position of these lights does not change relative to the moving camera. The other reflections on the periphery appear to be lens flares. There is a definite correlation between camera movement and their behavior.

3. Time Index 0:14 = Beautiful pink sunset. The reason to be recording in the first place.


4. Pink sunset indicates some haziness, possibly reason for diffraction of car headlights.

5. Also conditions were approximately right for fog to begin forming. Temp 60 deg F, RH 69%, Dew Point: 50 deg F This would also cause diffraction of headlights.

6. Time Index 2:14 = Other woman says something to the effect that "you can see it."

7. Time Index 2:17 = Other witness in frame. Not clear to me whether she's using a camera or not.

8. Time Index 2:18 = Mike begins position change to get out of the way of the guy with the head. Notice the relationship of the object to the tree branches.

9. Time Index 2:26 = Object now reacquired. Notice new relationship of tree branches to object.

10. Time Index 2:40 = The guy with the head moves through screen. Looking at still frames, there are 2 blobs of light, it looks like the leftmost blob disappears just as the head appears, right blob is still visible. In the next frame the blob is illuminated again. Tough to explain, maybe a coincidence, but there are other frames where one or the other goes dark quickly, then reappears. Just before this, the rightmost blob had briefly disappeared before the guys head appeared.

11. Time Index 3:11 = Wife indicates play time is over. That's the reason Mike didn't continue to record the anomaly.

12. Problem with door/window/glass hypothesis:
- The glass surface would have to be huge. Mike pans the camera from approx 50 deg altitude to the ground, as well as an azimuthal arc of at least 100 deg. So not inside of a car.

- Image of Best Buy shows his location in parking lot. So no doors/bus stops are readily available.


- There was no indication of commotion that one would expect if Mike were holding up some huge piece of Plexiglas in the middle of a parking lot.

- There was no echo. One would expect an echo if some solid transparent surface were close enough to him to be used for a hoax.

13. Checked for blimp activity in the area. Neither Goodyear nor MetLife had a ship in the area. Also considered the possibility of an advertising blimp, but the altitude of the anomaly would seem to preclude that possibility.

14. The object lies West of Mike's position.

So, those are a few of my observations. In summary, I don't believe it's a hoax. But it would take a lot to convince me that this object has an extra-terrestrial origin.


-dex

a reply to: MikePittaro74

Hi Mike,

Welcome to Above Top Secret! I'm glad you decided to join the conversation here regarding your sighting. You've come to the right place to find out what you actually saw.

As you can no doubt see, there are a number of people here with a lot of experience in analyzing sightings like yours. In fact, in this community you will find a very large eclectic mix of members with a broad range of specialties and interest.

And from the variety of comments made about your sighting, you can clearly see the conspiracy-theory undertones that permeate virtually every conversation we have here. Folks here have seen way too many hoaxes perpetrated over the years to be fooled easily. I'm glad you didn't take exception to their comments and decided to return to our forum to further discuss the anomaly you witnessed.

You may want to look around at some of the other forums here on ATS. You will no doubt find some topics of interest that could benefit from your own expertise and experience.


- dex

originally posted by: Lucidparadox
I watched the debunk vid..

Maybe Im wrong but if it was a lens flair wouldnt it move as his camera shakes and moves?

When his camera shakes and moves, it stays in the exact same spot

No. Lens flare probably wouldn't move but it depends on what is the cause of the flare.

Filming behind glass/other transparent material would probably create the effect seen in the OP video.

a reply to: MikePittaro74

Sorry. I just do t buy it...

You would never post the photos/video to ANY social media if you didn't want them to be seen/shared.

Has nothing to do with conspiracy theories...

originally posted by: MikePittaro74
a reply to: game over man

I didn't see any orbs leaving the scene. Is it somewhere in the video? Can you provide a time stamp where it happens?

So you just left while alien orbs are hovering over best buy?

a reply to: intrptr

Same reason he put it up on line in the first place. Who does that? You got me.

Imagine little kids, running around the neighborhood ringing door bells, hiding in the bushes and snickering…

What concerns me more are the kind of people that wage war on whole countries, dropping bombs on places where people live, then going home and sleep at night.

I could see it if he were some teenager. But he's a grown man with a family...I guess I just don't look for the bad in people enough because I want to believe in the good.

a reply to: intrptr

Filming it through glass or plastic would account for that. Like holding a door open at a store and filming from inside the store, looking through the glass? Maybe a sheltered bus stop? It 'appears' he's outside…

gotta be slick nowadays to come up with some new hoax.

I guess I'm just not able to comprehend what you guys are talking about. I thought lens flare occurs when bright light is shining onto the camera lens that is not in the actual line of sight of what is being filmed? So I don't understand what you mean by if he was filming it through glass or plastic. Regardless of what he was filming it through (or not), if the camera is bouncing or jittering, it would make sense that the "objects" would jitter too, would it not, or flicker? The movement would interrupt the beam of the light hitting the lens, yes?

The problem that I have with the being behind glass or plastic theory is that it would have had to be some mighty clean glass in order to not be obvious...and public places like stores that have glass doors are never clean...everybody and their big ugly momma seems to forget that there are actually handles on the doors and they put their smudgy prints all over the glass, and I don't care how many times you go clean them off, two seconds later it's a lost cause.

Something is most definitely "off" here, but I just don't think I buy the explanation of it being lens flare.

a reply to: MikePittaro74

a reply to: game over man

I didn't see any orbs leaving the scene. Is it somewhere in the video? Can you provide a time stamp where it happens?

Ok, now the respect-o- meter is taking a nosedive. I can tell from all the way over here that you are obfuscating, so kindly stop it. We have been more than accommodating to you here. His question was simple. Obviously, he cannot provide a time stamp, and you know damn well it wasn't in the video. You were the one filming. If you did not see them "leaving the scene", then that means they did not disappear while you were still present and you decided to stop filming them and depart regardless? If that's the case, then say so.

a reply to: tigertatzen

My apologies; I misunderstood the question. I thought he was trying to point something out in the video.

No, the main object did not leave. Yes, I did stop filming, but not before I filmed a second video from a different angle.

a reply to: tigertatzen

You're right. The camera is hand held and the image should move if its lens flare. But the image remains fixed, meaning the reflection in the image is from a fixed clear surface between the camera and that street light.

About clean windows in stores or bus stops, it wasn't that clean, the sheen reflection from headlights earlier n the video bears that out.

Not so's you notice that much when buying donuts or burritos, but more handy to fake some people out…

Shooting through greasy glass is an old film technique, giving scenes in movies or photographs that foggy or dreamy look. Also to hide detail. Not that our oofo is that smart, but that windows could be that dirty somewhere.