Wow! I have to say that was pretty impressive. A very convincing video. Now what exactly was that thing. The light placement and colors were not correct for it to be a helicopter. Was the front of the house below the ufo bathed in a redish glow? What was that about?

Thanks for the extended version. I have to say i become more and more convinced that this is genuine.
Worldblend do you know what is the little blinking reddish light visible on the bottom left of the video (you can see it clearly at the start of the video) ?

after seeing the daylight video, I do have admit, it's back to being a ufo for me. thanks for coming here and sharing your experience Worldblend

Worldblend, I got to hand it to you, talk about quieting the crowd! All the debunkers don't know what to do with themselves now. For at least the time that I've been here at ATS, this is the first time that we've scrutinized a video and then actually been able to question the videographer about it. And not only that, you come through by providing even more solid evidence. Congrats!

I have a feeling that some of our debunkers are U2Uing you instead of posting in this thread in order to escape the wrath. Just a thought.

Peace

Originally posted by Dr Love
Worldblend, I got to hand it to you, talk about quieting the crowd! All the debunkers don't know what to do with themselves now. For at least the time that I've been here at ATS, this is the first time that we've scrutinized a video and then actually been able to question the videographer about it. And not only that, you come through by providing even more solid evidence. Congrats!

I have a feeling that some of our debunkers are U2Uing you instead of posting in this thread in order to escape the wrath. Just a thought.

Peace

What wrath? The wrath of having to say you don't know what it is? I think many have already said something to that effect.

I still point out that we are not seeing the entire video yet, With things like this I feel that it is best to be able to weigh ALL the evidence. I am not saying that just because all the video is not available that the videographer is trying to scam us. But there is a possibility that somewhere in the minute plus of video we have not seen yet that there is perhaps something he may have missed or overlooked,that might help explain what it is.

With the video we have seen it is difficult for me to come to any conclusion other than "I have no clue as to what it is".

[edit on 11/3/05 by Skibum]

Originally posted by Musclor
Thanks for the extended version. I have to say i become more and more convinced that this is genuine.
Worldblend do you know what is the little blinking reddish light visible on the bottom left of the video (you can see it clearly at the start of the video) ?

That is actually something we noticed and remains an open question.....good eyes.

Hi Worldblend,

I have followed this post from the beginning and it really got quite interesting these last couple days...Great post!

If you dont mind me asking, what happens at the end? Ive watched the full footage and it seems as if the object turns slightly to the right - What happened after that?

Thank you for the extended version. However, for me it, it has only raised more questions.

1. There are so many cars passing by, now I would have thought they would have all stopped and congregated around to see it. So, did others see it? I also would have thought we would hear more oohs and ahs. All I can hear is your "it's over my house" and stuff. You say this is from the pheonix lights incident. How do we know it is? A time code may have helped.

If I remember properly, there were black triangles, and from the limited view of the UFO, I don't see a black triangle. However, who knows, maybe there was another craft too.

I also noticed that the red lights on the "UFO" the one on the right that is, is not always on. It actually turns off as well. That seemed odd to me.

Oh, and is it just me, or did you mute part of the footage, which funnily enough, is the part that you showed us originally and I made the observation of the transition sound on

All I see mate is something that to me looks superimposed on the sky and remains completely still. I don't doubt the footage is real, but I do have doubts of what you are claiming to be a UFO. I am sorry, I am just not buying it.

It is quite clear you have knowledge of video editing, and you are quite an enthusiast, as you carry your camera with you all the time. I wonder if we can add special effects to your list of talents too.

[edit on 11-3-2005 by Indigo_Child]

I believe that if you read back, That Gaz says it is back into the category of unidentified. What more do you want, for him to start proclaiming that just because it is unidentified, that it is an alien ship? It seems Worldblend doesn't even make such a claim.

Yes, I agreed that since we've now eliminated the hill, we're back to truly unexplained. However there is a large degree of possibilities between unidentified and interstellar spaceship. As for where I've gone...been here the whole time...

The downside of all of this is, that EVEN if you showed up with a crystal clear video of an ET taking you on a guided tour of the ship and showing you how it flies, it could STILL be proven a fake (in the public's mind) by showing up the next day with some rubber masks that resemble the alien who gave you the tour!!!

Disclosure isn't going to happen until either the aliens themselves want to come out in the open, or until those in government that keep the secret are ready for it to come out.

That said, I do applaud the efforts made though, by all videographers and photographers that are at least trying to eliminate as many what ifs as possible, before putting it as "unexplained craft"

Right, so here we are now with most members involved in this thread agreeing that this is a UFO, and what does that get us...........NOTHING!. Now I go back to what I said earlier in this thread. Some over-scrutinized this video and were seeing things that just weren't there. So , assuming that this is real, if the government isn't going to do anything with it and science isn't going to do anything with it, why over-scrutinize?? I don't mean to suggest that we should blindly believe everything we see, but don't go into it with a skeptical frame of mind, because once you do that, you start doing the government's job for them. So, I ask, who's getting over on who?????

Peace

Originally posted by Indigo_Child
...Oh, and is it just me, or did you mute part of the footage, which funnily enough, is the part that you showed us originally and I made the observation of the transition sound on

All I see mate is something that to me looks superimposed on the sky and remains completely still. I don't doubt the footage is real, but I do have doubts of what you are claiming to be a UFO. I am sorry, I am just not buying it.

It is quite clear you have knowledge of video editing, and you are quite an enthusiast, as you carry your camera with you all the time. I wonder if we can add special effects to your list of talents too.

Indigo_Child, why don't you start with something that's a little more on your experience level, like trying to convince us that all the monsters in Ray Harryhausen's movies were actually made out of clay and not real.

Peace

I don't mean to suggest that we should blindly believe everything we see, but don't go into it with a skeptical frame of mind, because once you do that, you start doing the government's job for them. So, I ask, who's getting over on who?????

That is one approach.... I just prefer to go in with a skeptical mind (as I've seen FAR too many fakes), because then, if it then stands up to that, and remains unexplained, well, then we have a much more solid example to show up to nonbelievers and go "looky", now don't we?

In order for a photo or video to stand up to scrutiny, one has to systematically eliminate the variables causing doubt, and explain away each "what if" as it comes up. Upon the initial viewing of the video, the "what if" of "what if it's up on a hill, since the author is stating there are high hills around, and other videos of the same area show such hills" wasn't sufficiently explained away as of the time, so it remained a pretty strong point of doubt at the time. With the daytime footage, this "what if" has now been satisfactorily dismissed, so we then move on to eliminate the other "what ifs" as well such as a model or video editting.

I'm not a sufficient expert to do so on those counts, but I seriously doubt it's a model, as that would be tricky due to the wind, and rain, and the focus seems about right for an object as far as it appears. From this and other posts here at ATS, I believe the videographer is sincere in his statements, but sure, we'd want to see some kind of analysis on the editting "what if" done. I should point out that these aren't done to HOPE for a logical explanation. It's done to get to the TRUTH of what the object is, and to be able to reinforce that truth to others.

[edit on 11-3-2005 by Gazrok]

Worldblend,

I think you are forgetting, that the burden of proof lies with you, not with me. As far as I can see is quite a questionable footage of a completely still and unclear object in the sky by a person who has knowledge of video editing, and also happens to use a sound transition during the zoom out, and on top of that they see things in rocks. Then when asked to post an extended version, you mute out the sound on the questionable part. I am sorry to tell you, but at best your case is dismissable, at worst it's fraudulent. This is not the most convincing footage I have seen, not even close to convincing.

I am not debunking you, because I don't believe in UFO's - because I do. It's just that it's quite apparent to me you have fabricated this. It's not about whether my ship is sinking, it's whether you can keep yours afloat. And as far as I am concerned; you can't. I don't think any further discussion will be necessary. This is my opinion based on all the evidence you have presented. If others want to believe, as the member Dr Love so wants to, more power to them. This member was ready to believe from the ready - get set- go.

Further more, you don't "lose" audio in slow motion. The audio becomes slow too. What you have done is edited out the soundtrack in the 2nd half. Bad move. It gives it away.

P.S I have a greater bull# detector

[edit on 11-3-2005 by Indigo_Child]

Originally posted by Indigo_Child
Worldblend,

I think you are forgetting, that the burden of proof lies with you, not with me.

That's the biggest copout and I'm tired of hearing it. How does the burden of proof lie with Worldblend? The video itself is the evidence he's presenting. If this were a court of law, he would be the defendant and you would be the prosecutor. It's your job as the prosecutor to prove that the evidence he provided is fraudulent and doctored. You haven't done it.

It's easy to just keep saying it's fake over and over again when you know that nothing's ever going to come of it anyways, real or not. Indigo_Child, I don't think you're capable of realizing it, but as much as you think you're helping the cause, you're really hurting it.

Peace

That's the biggest copout and I'm tired of hearing it. How does the burden of proof lie with Worldblend? The video itself is the evidence he's presenting. If this were a court of law, he would be the defendant and you would be the prosecutor. It's your job as the prosecutor to prove that the evidence he provided is fraudulent and doctored. You haven't done it.

In a sense, you're both right and wrong imho... The old saying goes, "extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof". However, Worldblend isn't claiming this is an interstellar space ship. He's just claiming it is unidentified. He isn't trying to "prove" anything from what I can see, but is merely trying to find out what it is.

I suspect that Worldblend believes this footage is more likely of a terrestrial, but secret craft, as opposed to extra-terrestrial. Don't forget, this is also a "what if" that is hard to explain away, and yet no less extraordinary....

That's the biggest copout and I'm tired of hearing it. How does the burden of proof lie with Worldblend? The video itself is the evidence he's presenting. If this were a court of law, he would be the defendant and you would be the prosecutor. It's your job as the prosecutor to prove that the evidence he provided is fraudulent and doctored. You haven't done it.

The burden of proof always lies with the claimant, because they are stating a claim and therefore must provide proof. Have you heard "extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence"

Well, I am sorry to say, this is anything but extraordinary. It's a completely still object that is supposedly hovering in the sky. I am not about to jump the conclusion it is a UFO, because giving the evidence that is presented, it is more logically consistent to me that it has been composited onto the footage. This is also consistent with the fact that the claimant has knowledge of video editing.

Now, if the UFO had moved and there was a change in perspective in relation to the footage, I would have factored this out. As Gazrok said, we need to first factor out the doubts.

I have more than one doubt about this footage. I have many. The sound transition, for me, casts the biggest doubt. And then posting the extended footage, and muting the questionable part, sounds like covering up.

I also have a philosophy, the louder you speak, the less substance you have. The claimant is quite hostile, don't you think

I am not hurting the cause of evidence for UFO's. I there is insurmoutable evidence to prove the UFO phenomena. I just don't think footage is evidence for UFO's. This is my humble opinion. I am not forcing you to believe me, however I would appreciate you don't force me to believe either.

[edit on 11-3-2005 by Indigo_Child]

Originally posted by Dr Love
Right, so here we are now with most members involved in this thread agreeing that this is a UFO, and what does that get us...........NOTHING!. Now I go back to what I said earlier in this thread. Some over-scrutinized this video and were seeing things that just weren't there. So , assuming that this is real, if the government isn't going to do anything with it and science isn't going to do anything with it, why over-scrutinize?? I don't mean to suggest that we should blindly believe everything we see, but don't go into it with a skeptical frame of mind, because once you do that, you start doing the government's job for them. So, I ask, who's getting over on who?????

Peace

If I were a consultant to Ufology or held an influencial position in some capacity, the first thing I would do is make this thread required reading. The last two comments by Dr. Love and Gazrok may seem disheartening and might leave people interested in this subject feeling depressed, but guess what? This discussion has reached a certain point and reached it by folowing the path of logic. It may not feel good, but reaching this point known as reality is healthy.
This may seem strange to hear me say, but I am with Gazrok. As real as this video is and believe me it is.......it doesn't mean Jack. It's evidence to support the notion(held by most already) that there are objects in the sky for which we have no explaination.
I want to add to this later, because taking a scientific approach from this point that we have reached(let me note I'm impressed we arrived here) is a stratedgy that may prove to be an epiphany for Ufology.


[edit on 11-3-2005 by Worldblend]