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.

 

Has this footage ever been "debunked?"

page: 3
12
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 12 2017 @ 01:55 PM
link   
a reply to: free_spirit

well this changes my view!
thanks as always, your comments are always mindblowing




posted on Dec, 12 2017 @ 04:16 PM
link   
a reply to: Crisis

my question - when viewing clips like this is :

wheres the other footage ?

this clip was allegedly taken - during a period of major volcanic activity - and a significant volcano

it would be an easy task [ for someone whio cared to ] to use the profile of the peak to calculate the minimum possible lenght and height of the allledged " UFO " and its minimum velocity

but i digress - the point being - is that its size is significant when compered to the volcano - so why did everyone on the far side of the volcano - simply miss seeing it ??????????



posted on Dec, 12 2017 @ 04:16 PM
link   
a reply to: humanoidlord

in that old thread someone had posted an interview with the guy that filmed it...he was filming for an hour....the original film is much clearer (50%) than what we see on line when the object stopped it was rotating,,can only see on the clearer recording he says



posted on Dec, 12 2017 @ 04:32 PM
link   
Yeah, it's been debunked. What the video in the OP shows is a reflection off an airplane landing at a runway on flat land on the other side of the volcano. It's just the angle of the shot. It also looks like it's going pretty fast, but the video is time-compressed.



posted on Dec, 12 2017 @ 05:30 PM
link   
a reply to: schuyler




What you have done here is take a light in the sky and transformed it in your imagination into "aliens from space" with no justification at all. It's a nonsensical conclusion.


Maybe to you , I've seen to much to tell the difference, but I'm not the one to convince others who have different opinions about life in the universe on biological levels..
edit on 0b06America/ChicagoTue, 12 Dec 2017 17:31:06 -0600vAmerica/ChicagoTue, 12 Dec 2017 17:31:06 -06001 by 0bserver1 because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 12 2017 @ 05:39 PM
link   
a reply to: research100

i saw the video pretty interesting



posted on Dec, 12 2017 @ 05:56 PM
link   

originally posted by: 0bserver1
a reply to: schuyler




What you have done here is take a light in the sky and transformed it in your imagination into "aliens from space" with no justification at all. It's a nonsensical conclusion.


Maybe to you , I've seen to much to tell the difference, but I'm not the one to convince others who have different opinions about life in the universe on biological levels..


That doesn't answer the question nor does it make a lot of sense. Focus on the issue: This is not about believing in the certainty of other civilizations in the Universe (I can readily believe that.) It's not even about believing in the possibility of FTL travel (I don't know how, but I suspect it can be done.) But the question is: How do you get from a light in the sky to aliens from space? You can't get from one to the other with the evidence you have. A "light in the sky" DOES NOT MEAN "aliens from space." That's completely nonsensical.



posted on Dec, 12 2017 @ 06:38 PM
link   
a reply to: schuyler

Sure theoritical it's just a light in the sky moving eradically from one point to another.

One can assume it's everthing in every aspect of its imagination.

Although if its real and there you want me to go and show proof to you ,that its in fact a real light phenomena and non conventional by any earth related means.

Then I should present the evidence of that ,that I will not do. Simply because I've got my own perception of what it might be other then cgi or whatever logical explanation it would fit best.

And whatever outcome I would present, I seem to get the feeling you wouldn't comply with me at all and that would be a waste of energy..



posted on Dec, 12 2017 @ 07:01 PM
link   
The glitches in the first one (volcano) sure make it seem like this is a doctored video. The second video is more interesting to me. Sure, it could also be a fake, but to my eyes just seems more likely it may actually be something



posted on Dec, 12 2017 @ 07:20 PM
link   

originally posted by: 0bserver1
a reply to: schuyler

And whatever outcome I would present, I seem to get the feeling you wouldn't comply with me at all and that would be a waste of energy..


And I seem to get the feeling you are completely avoiding the issue. The thing is, it's not a difficult issue. I'm not asking you to prove what it is. I am simply saying what we have here is a light in the sky. Now, if you are indeed claiming "aliens from space" I would like you to show me how you derived that conclusion. If you are not actually claiming that (At this point I'm not sure I can tell) then we have no issue. If you think it is something else, well, then, that's fine, but please explain how you arrived at whatever conclusion you have. Right now all we have is a light in the sky. If anyone is going to claim this is something extraordinary that we need to get excited about, or that it "proves" something, then the onus is open the claimant to "show your work." The problem with these sorts of things is that people too often exceed the evidence.

For example, it's one thing to say this light "looks like it is under intelligent control and the evidence for that is its movements do not look random." What you have done is attempt to analyze the evidence you have, but you have not really exceeded it. We can examine the proposition that the movement is non-random from several different angles. But once you claim, "and that proves aliens from space" you have just massively exceeded your evidence. There is no way you can jump from "non-random movement" of an otherwise indistinguishable light to "aliens from space." The evidence just is not there.

From the opposite direction, I would say the same to people who claim this is CGI. If it IS CGI, then there ought to be evidence of such in the film itself. If we can engage the attention of a CGI expert who can take this film apart frame by frame, he ought to be able to tell us if that proposition has any element of truth. In the absence of such evidence, saying this is CGI is no more valid than saying "aliens from space." So to the CGI adherents I have to say, "OK, your turn to prove it."

So far in this thread, I see no evidence of CGI and I see no evidence beyond a light in the sky. If you;re going to claim otherwise and have it accepted as valid, you have to do better than guessing.
edit on 12/12/2017 by schuyler because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 13 2017 @ 12:15 AM
link   
not only does UFO look fake but so do comments (sound fake).



posted on Dec, 13 2017 @ 01:22 AM
link   
a reply to: schuyler




I would like you to show me how you derived that conclusion


From studying plasma in a non equilibrium



posted on Dec, 13 2017 @ 02:44 AM
link   
a reply to: jedi_hamster

That's the problem with the folks on ATS here, everything is hoax and CGI to them, they don't take anything else into account, and seem to be experts in CGI when they use words like "OBVIOULSY" or/and "You can tell". Don't let those trolls get to you, all arm chair experts, on UFO's, and CGI....... I've never seen so many. It's amazing, all in one forum......



posted on Dec, 13 2017 @ 05:03 AM
link   
a reply to: gunshooter

It's the way one approaches unexplained phenomenon in the first place. If one starts with false because sheep say so then it will always be so.

If one starts with true and tries to approachdifferent aspects of why it could be true and within observation or perhaps looking it from a scientific point of view what it could be if it were something out of the ordinary, than start to find something that might look like the phenomenon imho.



edit on 0b20America/ChicagoWed, 13 Dec 2017 05:04:20 -0600vAmerica/ChicagoWed, 13 Dec 2017 05:04:20 -06001 by 0bserver1 because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 13 2017 @ 05:28 AM
link   

originally posted by: gunshooter
a reply to: jedi_hamster

That's the problem with the folks on ATS here, everything is hoax and CGI to them, they don't take anything else into account, and seem to be experts in CGI when they use words like "OBVIOULSY" or/and "You can tell". Don't let those trolls get to you, all arm chair experts, on UFO's, and CGI....... I've never seen so many. It's amazing, all in one forum......



No it's not. I am quite sure that most of us here would love some proper evidence of aliens or UFOs. Or have you not read any threads at all?
That's the reason we are erring on the logical side.
People who never question anything and claim 'real alien proof', are the real problem.
Not only does it immediately dilute any other 'better' evidence we may have but it makes us all look like gullible morons who can't tell a [terrible] hoax from good footage.

Maybe that is some people's aim here, to be so naive that we can't be taken seriously if ever real footage shows up.

I looked at this and it is one of the worst cgi footages ever. The guy doesn't even synch with what he sees. When the stupid blob is stopping and then starting again, he actually misses it and a bit too late he gives us a weak "holy #". As if pre filmed before putting that stupid cgi thing into it.

I say CGI because of the tell tale movements and the way it is supposed to disappear in the clouds and everything really.

I have seen some amazing footages that were definitively not CGI, there are plenty but this ain't one of them.

Are you saying we should all be wide eyed idiots on here and never scrutinize anything? That's the reason religion works with some people too.
Sorry, not playing.



posted on Dec, 13 2017 @ 08:51 AM
link   
a reply to: Hecate666

I also tend to see the failures in editing, but we might be wrong that we'll never truly know



posted on Dec, 13 2017 @ 10:25 AM
link   
a reply to: Hecate666

Although I agree with your sentiments, what do you make of the footage at the 18 second mark where the glow and a small section of the 'orb' can clearly be seen traversing the ridge-line before disappearing and re-appearing from behind the clouds on the same trajectory...clever hoaxing, after making such a pig's ear of everything else...or he just got lucky?



posted on Dec, 13 2017 @ 10:30 AM
link   

originally posted by: Blue Shift
Yeah, it's been debunked. What the video in the OP shows is a reflection off an airplane landing at a runway on flat land on the other side of the volcano. It's just the angle of the shot. It also looks like it's going pretty fast, but the video is time-compressed.

If this is the case, then it also debunks the CGI explanation, does it not?



posted on Dec, 13 2017 @ 11:43 AM
link   

originally posted by: fromtheskydown
If this is the case, then it also debunks the CGI explanation, does it not?

It's not CGI. There may be glitches in the footage, but it's essentially a misidentified airplane.



posted on Dec, 13 2017 @ 12:19 PM
link   

originally posted by: 0bserver1
a reply to: schuyler




I would like you to show me how you derived that conclusion


From studying plasma in a non equilibrium


Makes no sense whatsoever. You "studied plasma in a non equilibrium" therefore WHAT? Aliens from space? What are you trying to say here? Is that all you've got? You're leading us around in circles here, still avoiding the issue. This kind of non-answer is why most people treat the UFO subject with derision. People "studying" it often fail to support their conclusions with any sort of logical answer.
edit on 12/13/2017 by schuyler because: (no reason given)



new topics

top topics



 
12
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join