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: 9
3
<< 6  7  8    10  11 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 11 2005 @ 11:48 AM
link   
I still think it looks like a blimp.




posted on Mar, 11 2005 @ 11:49 AM
link   

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.


Well yeah, that is what a UFO is isn't it? Unidentified flying object. And he's claiming to have footage of an actual proof. That is what he is trying to prove. That the claim.

As I said about USO's in the past, they make me very dubious. Especially this USO. I recall how a traffic jam was created when a model UFO was flown here in UK as a social experiment. Yet, here, at least from what we can see, cars are just passing by.



posted on Mar, 11 2005 @ 11:55 AM
link   

Originally posted by Dr Love

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


Dr. Love

You slight problem with your theory.

We have not seen the entirety of all the evidence yet. A copy of the exact file as he got it from the camcorder would be nice. Its obvious that the last link to the extended version, loses sound halfway through. I would like to hear that as well as be able to see the remaining footage in an untouched form(exact copy of the original file from recording device). It could be likened to the prosection of a murder trial failing to disclose evidence that possibly exhonorates the accused.

[edit on 11/3/05 by Skibum]



posted on Mar, 11 2005 @ 12:04 PM
link   


Originally posted by Gazrok:
In a sense, you're both right and wrong imho... The old saying goes, "extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof".




Originally posted by Indigo_Child
Have you heard "extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence"


Here's the problem with your thinking fellas. Since UFOs don't exist, officially, it is unreasonable to put someone who is trying to present evidence of a real UFO behind the eight ball right off the bat. This is unfair. The person presenting the evidence is already at a huge disadvantage right from the get-go. Now you want them to prove it to you. With what?? UFOs don't exist officially. There's no real evidence, officially, from which to draw from.
You're asking the impossible and you know it. You have to make exceptions when you're dealing with subjects of this nature (i.e. UFOs, ghosts, spirits, Yeti, etc.....).

Peace


[edit on 11-3-2005 by Dr Love]



posted on Mar, 11 2005 @ 12:12 PM
link   


Here's the problem with your thinking fellas. Since UFOs don't exist, officially, it is unreasonable to put someone who is trying to present evidence of a real UFO behind the eight ball right off the bat. This is unfair. The person presenting the evidence is already at a huge disadvantage right from the get-go. Now you want them to prove it to you. With what?? UFOs don't exist officially. There's no real evidence, officially, from which to draw from.



Wrong, we are saying UFO's exist, But we are also saying that just because it is a UFO doesn't mean it is an alien ship. It just means that the object in question is unidentifiable. You seem to equate somehow that UFO=alien ship. It does not.



posted on Mar, 11 2005 @ 12:15 PM
link   
Well, I did add the disclaimer that IF he was trying to prove it a spacecraft, then THAT would be an extraordinary claim...but since he is merely citing it as unexplained, then I'd have to agree with present evidence, and since not such an extraordinary claim, it doesn't really require as much proof, just an effort to try and eliminate the other possibilities...


I find it hysterical that we used the same wording though, hehe...



posted on Mar, 11 2005 @ 12:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by Indigo_Child

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]

Child
"extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence"
I have used this quote on individuals in the past, but when I did I usually reserved it for instances when the person has actually made extraordinary claims. Do you have any idea how silly it looks when used in a context where none is made?

If anyone is interested in researching assertions made by Indigo Child in regards to slo-mo and editing programs. My editing program is Pinnacle Studio 8.01 and you will clearly see that a clip rendered in slow motion retains the audio information, but the audio is not rendered as a slower audible clip.....most do not......most shown on TV do not....most people know this.......how is it that you do not?



posted on Mar, 11 2005 @ 12:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by Skibum
Wrong, we are saying UFO's exist, But we are also saying that just because it is a UFO doesn't mean it is an alien ship. It just means that the object in question is unidentifiable. You seem to equate somehow that UFO=alien ship. It does not.


I think most equate UFOs to "alien ships". Whether this particular craft is piloted by a human or an EBE, it really makes no difference. Our government tells us that aliens don't exist, so it must be piloted by a human, right?? We shouldn't be arguing semantics, but I do see your point.

Peace



posted on Mar, 11 2005 @ 12:34 PM
link   

"extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence"
I have used this quote on individuals in the past, but when I did I usually reserved it for instances when the person has actually made extraordinary claims. Do you have any idea how silly it looks when used in a context where none is made?


In fact, you must think we are very silly, that you should post a footage of what you claim to a UFO, and then say "I am not making an extraordinary claim"

Also, please keep the "I was a skeptic" act. I've heard it way too often to care. We have a guy on this forum who tells us the same, and now he's the arch enemy of the lizards who are heading to Earth on a planet with an invading army.

[edit on 11-3-2005 by Indigo_Child]



posted on Mar, 11 2005 @ 12:37 PM
link   
Worldblend video is surley fire on the mountain or at least lights of some kind on a mountain. The daylight video has fog or clouds and hides the mountain in the distance....



Originally posted by Worldblend

Short on time, but wanted to give you this new link which may clear up some issues.

www.worldblend.net...


At the start of the video one can see it is very cloudy, so in effect it does not clear things up



posted on Mar, 11 2005 @ 12:47 PM
link   
Indigo Child,

I can see being skeptical, but the (mild) hostility seems unwarranted... I'm not sure it's intentional, but that's how it's coming across...


Actually Dr. Love, it IS a big difference whether a man-made craft or one piloted by aliens. Because, if any video, photo, etc. is ever proven to be beyond a logical doubt, AND we can rule out the military factor, THEN we're left with good evidence of other beings out there, whereas with the military, we're left with the less extraordinary new ship in development.

That is why I like to focus on those cases (like Roswell, Battle of LA, etc.) where even the government is (or was prior to a coverup) admitting to scratching their heads...as such cases then go far in eliminating that particular "what if".

[edit on 11-3-2005 by Gazrok]



posted on Mar, 11 2005 @ 12:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by Indigo_Child

"extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence"
I have used this quote on individuals in the past, but when I did I usually reserved it for instances when the person has actually made extraordinary claims. Do you have any idea how silly it looks when used in a context where none is made?


In fact, you must think we are very silly, that you should post a footage of what you claim to a UFO, and then say "I am not making an extraordinary claim"

Also, please keep the "I was a skeptic" act. I've heard it way too often to care. We have a guy on this forum who tells us the same, and now he's the arch enemy of the lizards who are heading to Earth on a planet with an invading army.

[edit on 11-3-2005 by Indigo_Child]


In fact, you must think we are very silly, that you should post a footage of what you claim to a UFO, and then say "I am not making an extraordinary claim"

I hate to bring the facts into this, but I did not post this video or start this thread.- FACT
My claim is the video is real and unidentified, this is not extraordinary.

Also, please keep the "I was a skeptic" act. I've heard it way too often to care
Does this archieved correspondence support your claim?
www.virtuallystrange.net...

No-FACT

Listen, after you all check and see that the above claims are bogus and irrational and see what I said about slo-mo is true, it will be followed by more dumb assertions. I am not interested in that.

It was nice talking with you.



posted on Mar, 11 2005 @ 01:06 PM
link   
I, for one, am very interested in this video. Can we tone down the rhetoric and get back to analyzing the images?

Does anyone have a video program that allows you to steady an image within a video?

It would be a lot easier to view, and analyze, if it were steadied.



posted on Mar, 11 2005 @ 01:28 PM
link   

I hate to bring the facts into this, but I did not post this video or start this thread.- FACT
My claim is the video is real and unidentified, this is not extraordinary.


Yet, you have an entire site on this and happen to be on a tour with ufologists, showing them all up
By the way, be honest now, just far have you circulated this video?



posted on Mar, 11 2005 @ 03:23 PM
link   
It's cool to be a skeptic and all but please, let's do away with the ad hominem attacks against Worldblend.
I think all of us following this thread clearly understand your position on the veracity of the video. Sadly though, you are grossly outnumbered by the number of people that have concluded that there is, in fact, some object in the air captured on this video and that it is "unidentified". Continually attacking Worldblend's credibility does NOTHING for this thread whatsoever and distracts from the true initial intent... to see if we can use technology to further evaluate what might have been captured on film. Thanks.



posted on Mar, 11 2005 @ 11:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by kozmo
It's cool to be a skeptic and all but please, let's do away with the ad hominem attacks against Worldblend.
I think all of us following this thread clearly understand your position on the veracity of the video. Sadly though, you are grossly outnumbered by the number of people that have concluded that there is, in fact, some object in the air captured on this video and that it is "unidentified". Continually attacking Worldblend's credibility does NOTHING for this thread whatsoever and distracts from the true initial intent... to see if we can use technology to further evaluate what might have been captured on film. Thanks.


There's been no intentional ad hominem attacks from me against worldblendl. I cannot say the same about our friend though. As I said, most of the time the louder one speaks, the less they know.

Further, there is no credibility to attack.

I for one don't believe there is an actual object captured in that video. I think it has been added later. It looks like a special effects job to me and it is clear this footage has been edited. Anyway, that's my opinion about it. Others can think different, hey there is freedom of thought


[edit on 11-3-2005 by Indigo_Child]



posted on Mar, 12 2005 @ 06:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by XPhiles
Worldblend video is surley fire on the mountain or at least lights of some kind on a mountain. The daylight video has fog or clouds and hides the mountain in the distance....



Originally posted by Worldblend

Short on time, but wanted to give you this new link which may clear up some issues.

www.worldblend.net...


At the start of the video one can see it is very cloudy, so in effect it does not clear things up


Here you go:
www.worldblend.net...

Photo from digital bonocs - not a model - not claymation



posted on Mar, 13 2005 @ 02:03 AM
link   

Originally posted by Worldblend
Here you go:
www.worldblend.net...

Photo from digital bonocs - not a model - not claymation


Worldblend

before I like to know about details of the location...

That is a better picture but a little hazy and uh... but wait !!!
Explain....why is that your picture just posted has been edited?

Worldblend posted picture
img154.exs.cx...

pixels are messed up?
img154.exs.cx...

Negative... Can see where it has been edited really good.
img154.exs.cx...

Under the blue line is where a mountain is or was lol ?
img154.exs.cx...

Thanks for the fun Worldblend



posted on Mar, 13 2005 @ 04:20 AM
link   
Looks real, that's my guess. Not enough clarity to download and go through some anaysis for me.

Dallas



posted on Mar, 13 2005 @ 10:19 AM
link   

Originally posted by XPhiles

Originally posted by Worldblend
Here you go:
www.worldblend.net...

Photo from digital bonocs - not a model - not claymation


Worldblend

before I like to know about details of the location...

That is a better picture but a little hazy and uh... but wait !!!
Explain....why is that your picture just posted has been edited?

Worldblend posted picture
img154.exs.cx...

pixels are messed up?
img154.exs.cx...

Negative... Can see where it has been edited really good.
img154.exs.cx...

Under the blue line is where a mountain is or was lol ?
img154.exs.cx...

Thanks for the fun Worldblend


COMPRESSION - In Regards to This Sites Motto.......

Why is it that some of you just will not be denied?



new topics

top topics



 
3
<< 6  7  8    10  11 >>

log in

join