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.

 

UFO | Famous flying saucer over Sweden 2012 with interview

page: 1
16

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 1 2020 @ 07:01 AM
link   
Here is some back story before the video posted below. Apparently the original poster was accused of hoaxing the video, yet, the supposed video debunking the actual footage is no longer listed publicly. The original poster of the video provided the below follow-up video as a response to the accusers saying he hoaxed the video.

Take it for what it's worth. EDIT: You have to watch it on YT so click the first link below. You can't view it on ATS.


edit on 1-1-2020 by 1point92AU because: (no reason given)




posted on Jan, 1 2020 @ 07:38 AM
link   
Darn, when are those aliens gonna learn how to keep those pesky saucers level during escape routines? Wobbly fool!

Hehe, nah, I think that's a good one. I ain't gettin out the editing tools though to check for pixelation inconsistencies. And before anyone screams "blurry," remember when you zoom in, video can get blurry. I'll vote view-worthy, for sure!

S&F.



posted on Jan, 1 2020 @ 08:57 AM
link   
And still they fly.



posted on Jan, 1 2020 @ 09:25 AM
link   
a reply to: 1point92AU

Never seen this one before. S & F

The object has an interesting shape.

That must have been bizarre to see in person. He sounded genuinely surprised when he was trying to get his sister to stop.

Thanks for sharing.

ETA, consumer drones came out in 2012, if I’m not mistaken. I doubt the original models could move that fast. We need the drone expert to weigh in on this.

The objects movements seem very unnatural for any type of craft we have. Almost like floating on air.
edit on 1-1-2020 by KKLOCO because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 1 2020 @ 09:29 AM
link   
a reply to: 1point92AU

A: Hey I seen a UFO!

B: Pics or it didnt happen....

A: Presents pics

B: those are fake I tells ya!

A:



posted on Jan, 1 2020 @ 11:10 AM
link   
seems like a legit video



posted on Jan, 1 2020 @ 12:00 PM
link   
woah.. looks awesome, never seen that before.
I wish there was some more background information in who, when and where.



posted on Jan, 1 2020 @ 12:05 PM
link   
Best to hold back on the "Woah"s and "Awesome"s...

a reply to: 1point92AU

It's certainly a fun daylight video in the old-school style of Adamski/Meier, but the stabilised version of the video underlines how we shouldn't take it too seriously:





And here's a closer examination of the 'shoulder glitch':





edit on 1-1-2020 by ConfusedBrit because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 1 2020 @ 10:59 PM
link   

originally posted by: KKLOCO
a reply to: 1point92AU

Never seen this one before. S & F

The object has an interesting shape.

That must have been bizarre to see in person. He sounded genuinely surprised when he was trying to get his sister to stop.

Thanks for sharing.

ETA, consumer drones came out in 2012, if I’m not mistaken. I doubt the original models could move that fast. We need the drone expert to weigh in on this.

The objects movements seem very unnatural for any type of craft we have. Almost like floating on air.


It reminds me of the object photographed in Greece by another ATS poster on here somewhere. I believe she was a photographer and she snapped a very clear photo of the object just off the cost of some cliff at the ocean. I do not recall the post but perhaps you might?



posted on Jan, 1 2020 @ 11:05 PM
link   

originally posted by: ConfusedBrit
Best to hold back on the "Woah"s and "Awesome"s...

a reply to: 1point92AU

It's certainly a fun daylight video in the old-school style of Adamski/Meier, but the stabilised version of the video underlines how we shouldn't take it too seriously:





And here's a closer examination of the 'shoulder glitch':






I'm not totally convinced either way. The video doesn't prove anything ET and the debunker (IMO) doesn't pose a strong enough position of the shoulder pitch. It's speculation either way.

The one thing I find the most interesting is the shadow you can very clearly see as it races just above the tree line around the 48 second mark. The shadow changes size as it traverses the treeline. A real shadow would change size due to how close or far away the tree line is and the tree line is varied in height which would account for the changing size of the shadow. Watch this section very closely in the first video you posted. Start at the 48 second mark and watch it from there. The shadow changes sizes multiple times according to the size of the trees in the treeline.

If this is CGI then whomever did this needs to go work for Pixar because their attention to detail is next level.
edit on 1-1-2020 by 1point92AU because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 1 2020 @ 11:11 PM
link   

originally posted by: Alien Abduct
a reply to: 1point92AU

A: Hey I seen a UFO!

B: Pics or it didnt happen....

A: Presents pics

B: those are fake I tells ya!

A:


To be more precise:

Pics / video or it didn't happen.
Credible eyewitness testimony in addition to pics / video or it didn't happen.
Multiple credible eyewitness testimony in addition to pics / video or it didn't happen.

I give you the Tic-Tac UFO and the Nimitz incident.

Response from the "skeptics"

"They are all liars and the video is fake!"

LOL

Haters are gonna' hate no matter if ET himself abducted them grabbed them by the shoulders and shook them while yelling, "I'm the real thing dude!"

They would simply start clawing at ET while yelling "Where's the zipper to your costume!?"

LOL



posted on Jan, 2 2020 @ 06:06 AM
link   

originally posted by: 1point92AU

originally posted by: ConfusedBrit
Best to hold back on the "Woah"s and "Awesome"s...

a reply to: 1point92AU

It's certainly a fun daylight video in the old-school style of Adamski/Meier, but the stabilised version of the video underlines how we shouldn't take it too seriously:





And here's a closer examination of the 'shoulder glitch':






I'm not totally convinced either way. The video doesn't prove anything ET and the debunker (IMO) doesn't pose a strong enough position of the shoulder pitch. It's speculation either way.

The one thing I find the most interesting is the shadow you can very clearly see as it races just above the tree line around the 48 second mark. The shadow changes size as it traverses the treeline. A real shadow would change size due to how close or far away the tree line is and the tree line is varied in height which would account for the changing size of the shadow. Watch this section very closely in the first video you posted. Start at the 48 second mark and watch it from there. The shadow changes sizes multiple times according to the size of the trees in the treeline.

If this is CGI then whomever did this needs to go work for Pixar because their attention to detail is next level.

You dont even need to look at the shadow, the very first part (by the trees, by the head) shows telltale signs of it being CGI. As the camera is heavily bouncing around, the UFO "stutters" with the camera movement, enough to be clearly noticable.



posted on Jan, 2 2020 @ 10:15 AM
link   

originally posted by: merka

originally posted by: 1point92AU

originally posted by: ConfusedBrit
Best to hold back on the "Woah"s and "Awesome"s...

a reply to: 1point92AU

It's certainly a fun daylight video in the old-school style of Adamski/Meier, but the stabilised version of the video underlines how we shouldn't take it too seriously:





And here's a closer examination of the 'shoulder glitch':






I'm not totally convinced either way. The video doesn't prove anything ET and the debunker (IMO) doesn't pose a strong enough position of the shoulder pitch. It's speculation either way.

The one thing I find the most interesting is the shadow you can very clearly see as it races just above the tree line around the 48 second mark. The shadow changes size as it traverses the treeline. A real shadow would change size due to how close or far away the tree line is and the tree line is varied in height which would account for the changing size of the shadow. Watch this section very closely in the first video you posted. Start at the 48 second mark and watch it from there. The shadow changes sizes multiple times according to the size of the trees in the treeline.

If this is CGI then whomever did this needs to go work for Pixar because their attention to detail is next level.

You dont even need to look at the shadow, the very first part (by the trees, by the head) shows telltale signs of it being CGI. As the camera is heavily bouncing around, the UFO "stutters" with the camera movement, enough to be clearly noticable.


I went back and looked again at the point you reference and do not see it "stutter" as you put it. Still....I would like to know from someone who does CGI work how difficult it would be to match a shadow to changing tree height as what we see in the video. Maybe it's really easy and maybe not. Still if it is CGI then as I said the person who did it has amazing attention to detail as that shadow changes sizes multiple times and correlates directly to the size of the treeline as it passes over.



posted on Jan, 4 2020 @ 05:34 AM
link   

originally posted by: 1point92AU

originally posted by: merka

originally posted by: 1point92AU

originally posted by: ConfusedBrit
Best to hold back on the "Woah"s and "Awesome"s...

a reply to: 1point92AU

It's certainly a fun daylight video in the old-school style of Adamski/Meier, but the stabilised version of the video underlines how we shouldn't take it too seriously:





And here's a closer examination of the 'shoulder glitch':






I'm not totally convinced either way. The video doesn't prove anything ET and the debunker (IMO) doesn't pose a strong enough position of the shoulder pitch. It's speculation either way.

The one thing I find the most interesting is the shadow you can very clearly see as it races just above the tree line around the 48 second mark. The shadow changes size as it traverses the treeline. A real shadow would change size due to how close or far away the tree line is and the tree line is varied in height which would account for the changing size of the shadow. Watch this section very closely in the first video you posted. Start at the 48 second mark and watch it from there. The shadow changes sizes multiple times according to the size of the trees in the treeline.

If this is CGI then whomever did this needs to go work for Pixar because their attention to detail is next level.

You dont even need to look at the shadow, the very first part (by the trees, by the head) shows telltale signs of it being CGI. As the camera is heavily bouncing around, the UFO "stutters" with the camera movement, enough to be clearly noticable.


I went back and looked again at the point you reference and do not see it "stutter" as you put it. Still....I would like to know from someone who does CGI work how difficult it would be to match a shadow to changing tree height as what we see in the video. Maybe it's really easy and maybe not. Still if it is CGI then as I said the person who did it has amazing attention to detail as that shadow changes sizes multiple times and correlates directly to the size of the treeline as it passes over.

Its hard to describe it because if you cant see it... well then you dont see it. When you do see it, its hard to unsee, because you'll see it in lots and lots of "real" UFO clips.

Perhaps stutter is the wrong word, more like... the movement on the UFO match the movement of the camera. When the camera dips down, the UFO dips down as well - just a few pixels, but enough to be noticable. A real physical object would never do this in sync with the camera. This to me indicate CGI and the inability to properly sync the rendered frames with the fast movement of the video, thus resulting in a "stutter". TL;DR the object appear as being on 2D plane *trying* to sync properly with the camera in order to stay in place, but fails.

Or you could call it lag, lol.



posted on Jan, 4 2020 @ 10:29 PM
link   

originally posted by: merka

originally posted by: 1point92AU

originally posted by: merka

originally posted by: 1point92AU

originally posted by: ConfusedBrit
Best to hold back on the "Woah"s and "Awesome"s...

a reply to: 1point92AU

It's certainly a fun daylight video in the old-school style of Adamski/Meier, but the stabilised version of the video underlines how we shouldn't take it too seriously:





And here's a closer examination of the 'shoulder glitch':






I'm not totally convinced either way. The video doesn't prove anything ET and the debunker (IMO) doesn't pose a strong enough position of the shoulder pitch. It's speculation either way.

The one thing I find the most interesting is the shadow you can very clearly see as it races just above the tree line around the 48 second mark. The shadow changes size as it traverses the treeline. A real shadow would change size due to how close or far away the tree line is and the tree line is varied in height which would account for the changing size of the shadow. Watch this section very closely in the first video you posted. Start at the 48 second mark and watch it from there. The shadow changes sizes multiple times according to the size of the trees in the treeline.

If this is CGI then whomever did this needs to go work for Pixar because their attention to detail is next level.

You dont even need to look at the shadow, the very first part (by the trees, by the head) shows telltale signs of it being CGI. As the camera is heavily bouncing around, the UFO "stutters" with the camera movement, enough to be clearly noticable.


I went back and looked again at the point you reference and do not see it "stutter" as you put it. Still....I would like to know from someone who does CGI work how difficult it would be to match a shadow to changing tree height as what we see in the video. Maybe it's really easy and maybe not. Still if it is CGI then as I said the person who did it has amazing attention to detail as that shadow changes sizes multiple times and correlates directly to the size of the treeline as it passes over.

Its hard to describe it because if you cant see it... well then you dont see it. When you do see it, its hard to unsee, because you'll see it in lots and lots of "real" UFO clips.

Perhaps stutter is the wrong word, more like... the movement on the UFO match the movement of the camera. When the camera dips down, the UFO dips down as well - just a few pixels, but enough to be noticable. A real physical object would never do this in sync with the camera. This to me indicate CGI and the inability to properly sync the rendered frames with the fast movement of the video, thus resulting in a "stutter". TL;DR the object appear as being on 2D plane *trying* to sync properly with the camera in order to stay in place, but fails.

Or you could call it lag, lol.


Thanks for the clarification. Now I see what you are talking about. Here's an objective rebuttal to that apparent movement. And I'm just contemplating the ifs here so allow me a bit of latitude. What if object just happened to dip at the very moment the camera dipped as well? What if it is purely coincidence? I don't know because I am not a CGI expert but I did raise a valid point regarding the shadow as the craft moves along the tree line.

Let's say this is CGI. I'm assuming to make a shadow change shape in direct correlation to the objects it is casting its shadow over would take a substantial amount of expertise and time. This very well could be CGI and as I said if it is then the person responsible for it is very, very detail oriented because the shadow changes perfectly all along its departure route along that tree line. Well done if it is CGI.



posted on Jan, 4 2020 @ 11:12 PM
link   
looks legit to me. the ufo reminds me of the one in the movie 'flight of the navigator'.



new topics

top topics



 
16

log in

join