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.

 

Apparent massive triangular object captured over Melbourne - night vision video

page: 9
40
<< 6  7  8    10 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 19 2015 @ 02:54 PM
link   
a reply to: BASSPLYR


hey this can be fun what's everybodies favorite propulsion theory for these triangles.

A mind.




posted on Nov, 19 2015 @ 02:55 PM
link   
The propulsion system obviously runs off Chaos Emeralds.

a reply to: Gh0stwalker

I'm sure you understand that if you do not have evidence from your sources, I am extremely reluctant to believe you.

Yes, that is fine. That is logical. Saying that aerodynamic design is solely the realm of humans, however, is not.
edit on 19/11/2015 by Eilasvaleleyn because: Reasons



posted on Nov, 19 2015 @ 03:06 PM
link   
can it be a moth in the camera?

moths are attracted by light and some have kinda a triangular shape and are dark brown in color

now dont make fun, i'm just using occams razor here.
edit on -06:00122015-11-19T15:12:25-06:002015ThursdayThursday201530 by Picollo30 because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 19 2015 @ 03:12 PM
link   

originally posted by: Picollo30

now dont make fun i'm just using occams razor here.


Hope you have a styptic pencil handy.



posted on Nov, 19 2015 @ 03:16 PM
link   
a reply to: Picollo30

No, it is not a moth.

As I stated earlier, moths do not fade in and out of corporeal existence. I also believe they do not have three distinctly glowing points. Currently, our two most likely explanations are hoax, or military aircraft (hover drone in particular.)



posted on Nov, 19 2015 @ 03:17 PM
link   

originally posted by: draknoir2

originally posted by: Picollo30

now dont make fun i'm just using occams razor here.


Hope you have a styptic pencil handy.



sorry english is not my native language. maybe i dint express myself correctly? occams razor states that the simplest answer is often the most correct and logical one. so triangular ufo is more far fetched than moth to me.

shouldnt we rule all options out instead of stating its a UFO?

also draknoir2 you being a grammar nazi when you can clearly see in my profile i'm from Portugal i think it was uncalled for.
edit on -06:00252015-11-19T15:25:06-06:002015ThursdayThursday201530 by Picollo30 because: (no reason given)

edit on -06:00262015-11-19T15:26:06-06:002015ThursdayThursday201530 by Picollo30 because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 19 2015 @ 03:42 PM
link   
a reply to: Eilasvaleleyn

sorry Eilasvaleleyn i can't see the glowing points. can you point me to a time frame in the video, so i can give my honest opinion? now that i've seen the video i think its weird the way it pops up @ the bottom from out of nowhere.

it reminds me a bit of USS Enterprise (Star Trek) seen from a frontal angle not really a triangle ufo (like the one in Belgium which was proved as a fake).

i still think its a fake though.
edit on -06:00432015-11-19T15:43:30-06:002015ThursdayThursday201530 by Picollo30 because: (no reason given)

edit on -06:00442015-11-19T15:44:56-06:002015ThursdayThursday201530 by Picollo30 because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 19 2015 @ 03:47 PM
link   
a reply to: Picollo30

I believe Drak said that because you mentioned Occam's Razor, implying something about cutting yourself.

As to the points, each corner of the triangle has a fairly circular source of light that is slightly brighter than the rest. Perhaps you aren't able to watch the video in max quality so it's hard for you to see?



posted on Nov, 19 2015 @ 03:59 PM
link   

originally posted by: Eilasvaleleyn
a reply to: Picollo30

I believe Drak said that because you mentioned Occam's Razor, implying something about cutting yourself.

As to the points, each corner of the triangle has a fairly circular source of light that is slightly brighter than the rest. Perhaps you aren't able to watch the video in max quality so it's hard for you to see?



you were right, i'm watching the video directly on youtube @ 720p HD and i can now perfectly see what you were talking about lights. i can see 3, two on each side and one on top (?).

has cgi been ruled out? the music doesnt help and is distracting, at least it's not using those dramatic youtube tracks which are present in every fake video.
edit on -06:00002015-11-19T16:00:35-06:002015ThursdayThursday201530 by Picollo30 because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 19 2015 @ 04:04 PM
link   
a reply to: Picollo30

I always mute everything.

No, CGI hasn't been ruled out. As I mentioned, fakery is currently considered the most likely explanation, followed by military drone.



posted on Nov, 19 2015 @ 05:45 PM
link   
It's fake. Watch it very carefully full screen when it comes into view. It doesn't actually fade in, but rather "pops" into view, as if some kind of overlay is being applied or edited in. The tip-off is that the nearby stars also "jitter" a bit right at the exact same time. I'll try to get a capture, but it's down so low that it's hard to get it framed. It's between frame "734" and "767."


You can also see where the image gets more grainy one frame to the next using the same settings of brightness and contrast adjustment. Of course, maybe alien (or secret government) UFOs just "do that." It's also very convenient that the "craft" just happens to pop into an area where there are no overlapping ("underlapping?") stars.

edit on 19-11-2015 by Blue Shift because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 19 2015 @ 06:49 PM
link   
The graininess might be a point and such, but the thing about the stars... Well, there's a lot more space where there isn't stars, honestly. Not "Very convenient", maybe "very slightly possibly convenient".



posted on Nov, 19 2015 @ 06:53 PM
link   

originally posted by: Eilasvaleleyn
The graininess might be a point and such, but the thing about the stars... Well, there's a lot more space where there isn't stars, honestly. Not "Very convenient", maybe "very slightly possibly convenient".

Just a suggestion.

Without anything solid to follow-up with, images are lousy evidence for anything.



posted on Nov, 19 2015 @ 07:22 PM
link   
a reply to: Blue Shift

Does the change in graininess only occur as the object comes into/out of view or is it prevalent throughout the video?

One thing that could explain the "Pop in" is that the video is time-lapsed. That one frame might be the equivalent of a reasonable degree of time. The guy who posted the video said something about uploading a normal speed version, so you might choose to follow up on that, at least.
edit on 19/11/2015 by Eilasvaleleyn because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 19 2015 @ 07:30 PM
link   
Why do people think there is cloaking tech? It's night vision. Something could easily have turned lights on and off for the same effect.

a reply to: Glassbender777



posted on Nov, 19 2015 @ 08:07 PM
link   
a reply to: raymundoko

Because why would an aircraft have dimmer switches for its exterior lights? And why would it use them over Melbourne?



posted on Nov, 19 2015 @ 08:29 PM
link   
So it's an aircraft? I doubt it. Looking at it frame by frame it appears this is a hoax. The object seems inserted or the uploader lied about how fast/slow they made the video.

a reply to: Eilasvaleleyn
edit on 19-11-2015 by raymundoko because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 19 2015 @ 08:36 PM
link   
a reply to: raymundoko

You mentioned turning lights on an off. Turning lights on and off is instantaneous, not graduak.

Yes, it's probably a hoax, but it;s pointless to just say that until we can get definitive proof. May as well do thought exercises.



posted on Nov, 19 2015 @ 09:54 PM
link   
a reply to: Eilasvaleleyn

Turning lights on and off is not always instant. It depends on the type of bulb. But I agree with a poster above that this does "turn on" in that it just appears suddenly in a frame, then gets brighter and dimmer. I'd probably give it more though that this but the music backdrop sealed this as a hoax from the start.



posted on Nov, 20 2015 @ 02:12 AM
link   

originally posted by: Eilasvaleleyn
a reply to: Phage

Oh, right. Yes, I'll agree with that. Though I take it you aren't averse to the idea that there are other dimensions that we can't properly comprehend?

a reply to: markymint

The video uploader claims the camera is protected from lens flares and the like by a protective cardboard cylinder that gets rid of ground-level light sources. I'd say it's more likely to be faked than a lens flair, honestly, but a lens flair is still a possibility.
The video is time-lapsed.
I'll agree with you on the ridiculous click bait title, though. "Mega-structure," as if. It's impossible to scale the thing.

a reply to: Mclaneinc

There is movement on max quality 1920x1080 full screen. Have you watched it on that? One of us is having our eyes play tricks on us, if that's the case.
The level of twinkling is something I can imagine being faked, though, with something like a blur effect.
The recording at the end of the video is from another time, with another camera.

a reply to: Ectoplasm8

Starred for evidence. That's definitely intriguing, and while the images don't match up perfectly hoaxing has now shot up on the list of explanations.





Now I'm confused, Ectoplam8 has basically said the same as me but I'm wrong and they are right?

And you are missing the point a tad, watch any video that is night vision and you will see twinkling, it happens for two reasons, the atmosphere and the light capturing device on the night vision camera (I also believe the timing is a part).

So to have a night vision screen that does not have a single twinkle is very suspicious, I'm still calling fakery..




top topics



 
40
<< 6  7  8    10 >>

log in

join