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.

 

Convincing video... real or fake?

page: 10
3
<< 7  8  9    11 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 13 2005 @ 10:33 AM
link   

Originally posted by Dallas

Looks real, that's my guess. Not enough clarity to download and go through some anaysis for me.

Dallas


Dallas:
Here is a link to an uncompressed shot. I should have just posted this first, but I had no idea someone could mistake compression for the editing of clouds/mountains.

www.worldblend.net...




posted on Mar, 13 2005 @ 11:53 AM
link   
That is a great video.



posted on Mar, 13 2005 @ 06:59 PM
link   
Your uncompressed shot is no better than the first compressed photo ? Compression is editing right? I'm just saying this picture and your video is not high quality. It seems if you want to prove something at least do a good job of it.

What is the location of the video and address etc.... or at least give an address of the street light.



posted on Mar, 13 2005 @ 07:19 PM
link   
looks pretty fake to me so im gonna go to the bath room



posted on Mar, 13 2005 @ 10:05 PM
link   
Here is a thought on how to analyse UFO footage, or any paranormal footage.

If you intend to prove that evidence is real, then you should set out to "prove" that the evidence is real, not "disprove" it. If something is not real then the evidence will speak. If we try to prove something is real by debunking it then we possibly overlook valid evidence.

Ask the questions like "how can this be real?" Not "how can we debunk it?" You might close the case before you actually get to the evidence that proves it is real. Being a skeptic helps us none in the search for Extra Terrestrial life, UFOs, ghosts and such.

I have seen the show "Ghost Hunters" on the Sci Fi channel shred potentially valid evidence and testimony simply because they said "this is how it could be disproved." Or, "We got the door to close, by doing this..." They went outside on one episode and sprayed perfume to see if the smell would come down to the basement to disprove the testimony of the smell of roses or flowers in the basement. Evidence gone, but it still did not disprove the testimony given of smelling roses.

If we are to "prove" that there are Aliens, then we need to work on "proving" it not "disproving" it. I'm not sure where the "debunk" method of "proving" something originated. But when you start off with the words "I'm skeptical" in your head, you are headed in the wrong direction. Your mind set is wrong. You don't go out looking for a date with the idea of "how can I not look for a date." See what I am saying.

It's just a better way of approaching it. Don't worry, the evidence will still speak for itself.

Troy



posted on Mar, 13 2005 @ 10:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by cybertroy
Here is a thought on how to analyse UFO footage, or any paranormal footage.

If you intend to prove that evidence is real, then you should set out to "prove" that the evidence is real, not "disprove" it. If something is not real then the evidence will speak. If we try to prove something is real by debunking it then we possibly overlook valid evidence.

Ask the questions like "how can this be real?" Not "how can we debunk it?" You might close the case before you actually get to the evidence that proves it is real. Being a skeptic helps us none in the search for Extra Terrestrial life, UFOs, ghosts and such.

I have seen the show "Ghost Hunters" on the Sci Fi channel shred potentially valid evidence and testimony simply because they said "this is how it could be disproved." Or, "We got the door to close, by doing this..." They went outside on one episode and sprayed perfume to see if the smell would come down to the basement to disprove the testimony of the smell of roses or flowers in the basement. Evidence gone, but it still did not disprove the testimony given of smelling roses.

If we are to "prove" that there are Aliens, then we need to work on "proving" it not "disproving" it. I'm not sure where the "debunk" method of "proving" something originated. But when you start off with the words "I'm skeptical" in your head, you are headed in the wrong direction. Your mind set is wrong. You don't go out looking for a date with the idea of "how can I not look for a date." See what I am saying.

It's just a better way of approaching it. Don't worry, the evidence will still speak for itself.

Troy


That seems all well and good. I just remind you of two words.

Occam's Razor

In its simplest form, Occam's Razor states that one should not make more assumptions than needed. When multiple explanations are available for a phenomenon, the simplest version is preferred. A charred tree on the ground could be caused by a landing alien ship or a lightning strike. According to Occam's Razor, the lightning strike is the preferred explanation as it requires the fewest assumptions.

en.wikipedia.org...'s_Razor



posted on Mar, 13 2005 @ 11:24 PM
link   
This is what the link you gave me stated:

"In its simplest form, Occam's Razor states that one should not make more assumptions than needed. When multiple explanations are available for a phenomenon, the simplest version is preferred. A charred tree on the ground could be caused by a landing alien ship or a lightning strike. According to Occam's Razor, the lightning strike is the preferred explanation as it requires the fewest assumptions."

Nice, but in this example nothing here is stated that the observer proved it was a lighting strike. The assumption obviously was that it was a lightning strike, and there was no further observation. This assumption does not prove it to be a lighting strike. This form of investigation could overlook the fact that it was in fact caused by a UFO. It says "the simplest version is preferred" and "the preferred explanation," how does this prove anything, it was just the most convienient "preferred" explanation. Sorry Mr. Razor, this would be a poor way to investigate.

All I was saying was that you go investigate with the right mind set. I didn't say don't use your powers of observation, and go in blindly, and say "yup, that was an alien space craft." The facts will show themselves, the blimp will still show itself as a blimp, not a UFO. The bird is still a bird, not a UFO.

See I could produce an image, lets say with a flashlight in the sky, that mimics a UFO (just for an example to talk about). And I can say "case closed." Pack up my gear and say "I've debunked it." And look no further. But in this situation, the object was real. I was able to pull off a look alike object with a flashlight, and I "assumed" this was the explanation. I stopped investigating and I failed to see the radiation burns on the tree tops, and I failed to search and find the faint circular pattern in the grass nearby, where the object landed. I failed to investigate through the eyes of someone who believes, and I investigated through a skeptics eyes and I missed valuable evidence that proved it was a real UFO.

Everything in this universe is not allways explainable with what we are familiar with, like with lightning strikes, hot air baloons, and military aircraft. Sometimes our observations defy what we are told are the "natural laws." Our observations can defy what we think is possible, but that doesn't necessarily make it any less true.

Troy



posted on Mar, 14 2005 @ 03:18 AM
link   
Sorry if someone already posted this, but this is the original thread with the same video linked from a different site along with some other videos. I think it could be a hoax, but it is oddly symmetrical if it were a fire or flares.

www.abovetopsecret.com...

[edit on 14-3-2005 by Centurian]

[edit on 14-3-2005 by Centurian]



posted on Mar, 14 2005 @ 09:38 AM
link   

Originally posted by cybertroy
...I failed to investigate through the eyes of someone who believes, and I investigated through a skeptics eyes and I missed valuable evidence that proved it was a real UFO.

Everything in this universe is not allways explainable with what we are familiar with, like with lightning strikes, hot air baloons, and military aircraft. Sometimes our observations defy what we are told are the "natural laws." Our observations can defy what we think is possible, but that doesn't necessarily make it any less true.

Troy


Good stuff Troy!


I figured I'd bump this thread up one more time before it fades away into obscurity. Indigo_Child, I don't think that you will ever change your mind. A skeptical opinion is always welcome in a good debate, but one has to have the capability of being flexible and admitting that they might have made a mistake. You should at least offer Worldblend that courtesy since he had enough sack to come on here and defend his video against your skeptical onslaught.

Peace



posted on Mar, 14 2005 @ 09:44 AM
link   
Based on all the available evidence (i.e. night and day video footage, commentary by the videographer), I'm simply left at unexplained lights in the sky. That's a far cry from stating "alien craft", but with ruling out the other possibilities, it's pretty much what we're left with...simply at "unexplained".



posted on Mar, 14 2005 @ 10:00 AM
link   

Originally posted by Gazrok
...That's a far cry from stating "alien craft", but with ruling out the other possibilities, it's pretty much what we're left with...simply at "unexplained".


ANYTHING is a far cry from stating "alien craft". Aliens don't exist, remember! Regardless of what is piloting it, it's in the air almost motionless with no discernible sound coming from it. This defies the laws of physics as we know them. No matter how perfect the evidence is, without official disclosure we will always be left at "unexplained".

Peace



posted on Mar, 14 2005 @ 10:37 AM
link   

No matter how perfect the evidence is, without official disclosure we will always be left at "unexplained".


I would differ on that somewhat though. This is hardly perfect, and there are still other possible explanations, including, if it's a craft, could be terrestrial in origin.

You know I already believe, just the documentation alone exists to show that beyond a reasonable doubt. But if we had a clear video of such craft, we'd then be at "unexplained craft" versus "unexplained lights"...



posted on Mar, 14 2005 @ 10:49 AM
link   

Originally posted by Gazrok
I would differ on that somewhat though. This is hardly perfect, and there are still other possible explanations, including, if it's a craft, could be terrestrial in origin.


By the way, I agree. I wasn't speaking of this evidence necessarily, but in general terms.

Speaking of the possibility of this particular UFO possibly being a "terrestrial" craft piloted by a human being; Why is it hovering quietly over houses at night. If this was a "terrestrial" craft, wouldn't you want to know what big brother was up to?

Peace


[edit on 14-3-2005 by Dr Love]



posted on Mar, 14 2005 @ 11:07 AM
link   
Of course, maybe it was Blue Thunder...



posted on Mar, 14 2005 @ 12:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by XPhiles
Your uncompressed shot is no better than the first compressed photo ? Compression is editing right? I'm just saying this picture and your video is not high quality. It seems if you want to prove something at least do a good job of it.

What is the location of the video and address etc.... or at least give an address of the street light.


Lets examine your statements here. It seems the compressed version was of a high enough quality for you to come to the conclusion it had been edited in such a way to remove mountains etc. However, the much higher quality uncompressed version is somehow not of a quality to determine if it is real? Does this make sense to you? It surely makes no sense to me.



posted on Mar, 14 2005 @ 08:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by Gazrok

No matter how perfect the evidence is, without official disclosure we will always be left at "unexplained".


I would differ on that somewhat though. This is hardly perfect, and there are still other possible explanations, including, if it's a craft, could be terrestrial in origin.

You know I already believe, just the documentation alone exists to show that beyond a reasonable doubt. But if we had a clear video of such craft, we'd then be at "unexplained craft" versus "unexplained lights"...


Agreed, it would seem these are unexplained lights, which seem to have some sort of physical relationship to each other. As I hinted at earlier, this sighting is no longer a focus of our research, but was a key component in helping us to narrow what was a group of sightings/events to a particular location. Subsequent work has focused more on the location and gathering data and making observations of this area. This included a five day study in which readings were taken with some of the latest scientific instruments available. These ranged from Gamma Radiation surveys to Electromagnetic Surveys conducted by a research group with real scientists funded by private contributions and government grants. This Friday a 24 hr video monitoring station will be installed by this group in which I will be responsible for its monitoring.
So the current status of this research project is working under the assumption(which is supported by scientific data and witness reports) that we have a site that seems to be hosting anamolous phenomenom on a regular basis. From this, certain predictions can be made: example: if this activity is engineered, one might expect to see A, B and C. Similar predictions can be made for natural anomolies. This is the type of study that would be regarded as valid scientific work/proceedure that could serve as an alternative scenario to the disclosure scenario you propose. In fact, I see it as the only viable method of proving what you propose in regards to ETI. It is important to note here that it is not the goal of the work to prove any theory in particular......just to gain a better understanding of what is happening.

[edit on 14-3-2005 by Worldblend]



posted on Mar, 15 2005 @ 01:18 AM
link   

Originally posted by Worldblend
Lets examine your statements here. It seems the compressed version was of a high enough quality for you to come to the conclusion it had been edited in such a way to remove mountains etc.


I never said it was high enough quality, It just seems that way? And yes it is possible and much more easy to remove and edit things at low compression in which I did not say you did remove mountains etc...lol. Thus your first photo and 2nd photo is at very low compression and therefore that amount of compression makes the picture edited. Very poor pixel quality can be seen through a negative image in both much better.

Even in the so called much higher quality uncompressed version that you posted, it is very pixilated and no bigger than 24.0 KB lol.


However, the much higher quality uncompressed version is somehow not of a quality to determine if it is real? Does this make sense to you? It surely makes no sense to me.


I'm not saying its real or not real, Where does real come in? lol The much higher quality uncompressed version you speak of is compressed and that makes it no better than the first picture! Poor pixel quality can be seen in a negative of this image as well?

Worldblend much higher quality uncompressed picture negative.

img235.exs.cx...
In this image one can see huge chunks of pixel blocks even better.

I looked at your PHOTOGRAPHY page and seeing that most of your other pictures are the same low pixel quality. I see no reason for you to remove a mountain lol.

If I was a UFOologist, I would say one of the worst UFO videos ever captured lol. Plus the fact the day/night video example is very cloudy during the day. And the daytime picture examples are hazy in the background (both video and the pictures could hide mountains!) + poor pixel quality all around.
Then to top it off, the location is around the Arizona mountains.

conclusion is that you video taped lights at night and nothing more in this thread lol.
It would be a big waste to use the latest scientific tools to even investigate what is here.




[edit on 15-3-2005 by XPhiles]



posted on Mar, 15 2005 @ 11:28 AM
link   

Originally posted by XPhiles

Originally posted by Worldblend


I looked at your PHOTOGRAPHY page and seeing that most of your other pictures are the same low pixel quality. I see no reason for you to remove a mountain lol.

If I was a UFOologist, I would say one of the worst UFO videos ever captured lol. Plus the fact the day/night video example is very cloudy during the day. And the daytime picture examples are hazy in the background (both video and the pictures could hide mountains!) + poor pixel quality all around.
Then to top it off, the location is around the Arizona mountains.

conclusion is that you video taped lights at night and nothing more in this thread lol.
It would be a big waste to use the latest scientific tools to even investigate what is here.



[edit on 15-3-2005 by XPhiles]


OK, so now we are down to just a problem with compression. U2U me your email and you will get a 1280 x 800 pixel original file downloaded from my digital binocs...no compression. The fact that you cannot determine that there are no mountains there from what was provided is beyond me.

We have an area with multiiple witness reports and videos of anomalous lights, destruction of the two closest power substations and documented appearances of Funnel and Lenticular clouds(rarely seen in the low desert) above the site. In which you say:

It would be a big waste to use the latest scientific tools to even investigate what is here.

Wow, what would it take to warrant a closer look? Not to mention, the actual findings and two follow-up visits by the research group are in direct conflict with your statement above. Why so eagar to dismiss?

[edit on 15-3-2005 by Worldblend]



posted on Mar, 15 2005 @ 10:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by Gazrok

No matter how perfect the evidence is, without official disclosure we will always be left at "unexplained".


I would differ on that somewhat though. This is hardly perfect, and there are still other possible explanations, including, if it's a craft, could be terrestrial in origin.

You know I already believe, just the documentation alone exists to show that beyond a reasonable doubt. But if we had a clear video of such craft, we'd then be at "unexplained craft" versus "unexplained lights"...


Let me add this video to the mix, as it rests fully in the craft catagory and is unexplained IMO. Too fast for a blimp, has a glow and shape not normally seen in jets, yet it was on a vector similar to an approach to Sky Harbor, but went on by.
www.worldblend.net...



posted on Mar, 16 2005 @ 05:51 AM
link   

Originally posted by Worldblend
Let me add this video to the mix, as it rests fully in the craft catagory and is unexplained IMO. Too fast for a blimp, has a glow and shape not normally seen in jets, yet it was on a vector similar to an approach to Sky Harbor, but went on by.
www.worldblend.net...


Another very interesting video. Thanks Worldblend. When was this footage filmed ?
Phoenix Arizona is definitively a hot spot in ufo activity, i'd love to live outhere




top topics



 
3
<< 7  8  9    11 >>

log in

join