New theory, lens flare.
Caused by what I don't know.
See the lens flare from this video by same user at 1:27 - www.youtube.com...
Somewhat familiar shape forms? Now, consider what we do not see - in this video or in ANY of his other videos. We NEVER see what's at ground level. We
have absolutely no idea what kind of other lights might be shining in the video creator's direction.
This image sums that up:
After multiple viewing and watching his other shock-jock titled videos, I suppose this one is actually in realtime. His equipment is apparently custom
made and I think that shows because of artifacts and glitches in the video, typically because the CCD in the equipment isn't great?
There are other quirks in there though and it'd be nice to see the original, but judging by the other videos, all the titles, editing etc - this UFO
Lou person doesn't "do" original raw footage.
I think lens flare is a strong angle that is being ignored here.
I do have to ask, why Eila...not typing that tonguetwister out sorry...but why are you so keen to defend someone you've never met, know nothing about
and who has only presented you with more questions and no answers? In fact, why does anyone here jump straight to their defense? Does anyone know UFO
Lou and their intentions at all? By all means, if you can get that person to swing by and weigh in then it'd be most welcome.
Presumably any defense is borne through how such pictures/video relate to things we have seen. Some replies suggest people can relate this blurry
image to something they've encountered. But where in history have other people noticed a static triangle superstructure craft materialize above them
and then de-materialize (without any movement). Such a thing doesn't really exist in UFO lore. There are common elements but this doesn't seem to
feature them. Even those here backing up this video with their own encounters haven't mentioned any kind of static display. Maybe I've overlooked some
cases but from general brain racking - nothing here adds up. And if there's one thing I've learned, it's that things (to do with UFO's) add up when
they're true and pretty simply so that everyone can see (if you're willing to look).
It's not a matter of "being nice to other human beings" or whatnot. It's not taking at face value all the shock-jock click-me titles, "MASSIVE
SUPERSTRUCTURE" and "IS THIS AN INVASION" and his top ranking video "AIRCRAFT CARRIER SIZE". Are we not allowed to make our own judgements? Do such
extravagant titles really need to be used? When people do this in real life, embellish facts/assumptions, make things seem like more than they are -
we call them liars. Why then when it comes to UFO's do we not? Why so quick to side with people & motives we know nothing about?
Ultimately, first hand experiences are vital. If an ATS member brings their UFO video here then they are worth defending. But random youtubers who
have nothing to do with ATS? Nah... do explain to me why we should? I don't see why we should.
And disclaimer: I am a believer and a witness to the phenomena or something related to it. I'm seeking in videos what I feel is the real deal, and I'm
sure the next person is too but they're looking for something different. That's fine. But please don't assume everyone just says "hoax" or "there's a
mundane explanation" for thrills... some things actually genuinely feel like they've been cooked up for youtube hits and this video is one of them.
I'll accept a discrepancy or two, maybe even 3. But 4, 5, 6 discrepancies? Now you're asking a lot of us!
The creator doesn't even CONSIDER lens flare, nope, just straight with MEGA STRUCTURE and other UFO hit counter key words.
There's also this in the video description:
"Simply appears, lasts a few minutes, then vanishes."
If I'm not mistaken, the object appeared for about 5 seconds and then faded away. 5 seconds is not minutes. I said it before I'll say it again -
obfuscation! Possibly "innocent" but perhaps even premeditated obfuscation for youtube hits... I mean that's generally what all these UFO channels on
youtube are aren't they? It's not like they're a treasure trove of definitive answers or anything...
edit on 19-11-2015 by markymint
because: (no reason given)
edit on 19-11-2015 by markymint because: no reason. just felt like it
edit on 19-11-2015
by markymint because: (no reason given)