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.

 

Dan Aykroyd: We Have the O'Hare UFO Video

page: 6
1
<< 3  4  5    7 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 10 2007 @ 08:03 AM
link   
I don't have a issue with Dan. I've heard him speak and he articulates his position well.

Of course usual "brainless trolls" will always find a way to criticize anything without forthought, regardless of the forum or topic. I especially like the one about he's doing it for the money, yea right. Yes Virginia there are clueless people in the world.

I agree with the poster who alluded the video maybe more of the same or as one put it "youtube effect". Still I look forward to seeing the footage.




posted on Feb, 10 2007 @ 10:44 AM
link   

Originally posted by necroticflesh
yea...much like this "proof". the pics of this ohare (sic) airport are just blurry object that could easily be a balloon. You guys are just quick to jump at any pic that is out of the norm and call it a ufo. well...here is my "ufo" pic attacking us......I will up load them....so as according to you all "pros" of the ufos (hey...if you look at the sky now you will see planes landing in fog but they look like ufos, so go report them to this same site and how you got it on vid!!!!!!!). Good night!


You signed up just to spew that? Umm......ok. NEXT!


Yeah, that's my only argument with Dan having it, if he does...., is charging people to see it. That, and sticking it in the middle of a dozen other sightings that will be on the next DVD, only to be forgotten about when the next clip/story is shown.

That's the only thing I hate about watching UFO specials, whether on TV or in a DVD movie. They tell us all this stuff, have all of these testimonies from people, show us a lot of old clips and pictures...scattered in with some new clips and pictures....then make their opinionated statement at the end of the show about whether it's all true or not.

But...what are they doing about it???
What are WE to do about it, besides tell our friends at the watercooler on Monday morning. I remember watching the last Dan Unplugged video and I enjoyed it - but if I had to write a report on it right now, I couldn't do it. It was just more of the same we've already been spoon-fed over the years.

Even though some people don't like Greer, I think he's one of the few that's actually putting his money where his mouth is. At least he seems like he's trying to do something about it all...to me. Personally, I think he's running head-first into brick walls because, even though I love the UFO subject, I just recently (last year) saw the press club video he has on his website...so I know mainstream people aren't even seeing this stuff.

What are we to do? What can we do?

(am I ranting again?)

Bah....LoL

Hydden



posted on Feb, 11 2007 @ 06:34 AM
link   
I bought Aykroyd's ufos unplugged dvd and laughed several times at the poor production values and from-below shots of him thoughtfully smoking cigarettes while giving uneducated, mundane opinions. After its conclusion, I ejected the dvd and immediately threw it in the trash, knowing I wouldn't want anyone else to see the embarrassment. Based on that experience, I have a prediction--no one who buys Aykroyd's upcoming "exclusive" O'hare ufo footage dvd is going to be much more than disappointed. I don't think he's got squat. And if I had great video footage, I'd take it to Brian Vike or Peter Davenport, who broke the whole O'hare incident in the first place. Ask yourself--would Davenport or Vike hold out to make bucks off a dvd? There's the difference! God I hate celebrities.



posted on Feb, 11 2007 @ 10:04 AM
link   

Originally posted by yuefo
I bought Aykroyd's ufos unplugged dvd and laughed several times at the poor production values and from-below shots of him thoughtfully smoking cigarettes while giving uneducated, mundane opinions. After its conclusion, I ejected the dvd and immediately threw it in the trash, knowing I wouldn't want anyone else to see the embarrassment. Based on that experience, I have a prediction--no one who buys Aykroyd's upcoming "exclusive" O'hare ufo footage dvd is going to be much more than disappointed. I don't think he's got squat. And if I had great video footage, I'd take it to Brian Vike or Peter Davenport, who broke the whole O'hare incident in the first place. Ask yourself--would Davenport or Vike hold out to make bucks off a dvd? There's the difference! God I hate celebrities.


I see your point, but not everyone is "into the UFO scene" and know where to send things like footage and pictures.

See my previous post of a likely explanation:
www.abovetopsecret.com...

Hydden



posted on Feb, 11 2007 @ 11:53 AM
link   
I agree that the first film was not great, just as the title says it is Dan's POV on the subject. It did look kinda funny him just smoking and opining.

I also agree with the statements about Greer being the only one DOING anything, even if it is imperfect. I wish there were better organization in the UFO community to get things done.



posted on Feb, 11 2007 @ 12:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by A SINCLAIR
\ I believe that most if not all UFO discussion boards have been penetrated completely. This would explain a lot. If this video does in fact exist perhaps Akroyd and Sereda know that if it were to be leaked on the net it might get discredited faster then you can say swamp gas.



You believe this based on what?
I assure you ATS isn't "penetrated" by any "organized" group or government spooks of any kind.


That's just ludicrous, look at the content of this site. Not to mention the fact 3 regular guys own this site and NOBODY ELSE, that's right there's only 3 of us and I KNOW I am not a spook and I KNOW Simon and S.O. aren't either... Looking at the content of this site, if someone is trying to limit information flow they are doing the WORST job possible!


If Aykroyd had video he'd have been out by now proclaiming it himself (not necessarily showing it) or Sereda would have been out proclaiming it.

I have a theory about this "video" footage of the O'Hare incident... It DOESN'T EXIST at least not yet. IF they are going to make a video I imagine it will be a reenactment much like the rest of their work. IMHO.

I also think this was one fast way to get everyone to STOP frantically searching for photographic evidence of the incident. Now I wonder WHO would want that to happen and why?

Springer...

[edit on 2-11-2007 by Springer]



posted on Feb, 11 2007 @ 09:53 PM
link   

Originally posted by MachXX

How can he claim "exclusivity" without accounting for every UNITED employee, passengers at every terminal with a camera, cars driving by on roads (public roads) , every person at parking lots and garages walking in or riding in a shuttle from miles around, etc.


Maybe he means that the Video he has acquired is exclusive as in no other source has possesion of it. Sure, other videos could exist, shot from different locations and angles, but the video he has is exclusively his. You will only see it through his channels. Lets say that half a dozen people took cell phone video of the object that day. And then lets say that one lucky guy happen to have his actual digital camcorder out and running, recording take offs and landings or such. And he just happen to notice the craft and recorded a high quality vid. Which one would you want exclusive rights to?

I don't know if such a video exists, but claiming exclusivity does not mean other footage does not exist.

[edit on 2/11/2007 by Jeddyhi]



posted on Feb, 12 2007 @ 10:11 AM
link   
Well if there is an organized ongoing operation to keep the biggest secret of aLL TIME secret then I hardly think anyone can "guarantee" the integrity of everyone who uses a public forum on the topic.

ON the ORD incident. If it hapened, and I believe it did, then there were a multitude of witnesses. If the duration of the sighting was accurate then there MUST be some good photos out there at least. My main concern is the amount of time that passed between the reporting of the sighting and the date of the sighting. Why such a huge gap?

AS



posted on Feb, 12 2007 @ 12:55 PM
link   
I love Dan Aykroyd and he has been interested in paranormal things like this for a very very long time, he wrote ghost busters so its not like he's just a narrator looking to make a buck. You have to give it up to an SNL alum who is seen on the same pedestal as Bill Murray to take a chance and go against the mainstream and make movies about ufos, I mean you are narrowing your audience with taking on subjects like that. If he wanted to make a buck he'd be making country music videos about supporting our troops or some kind of easy topic like that.



posted on Feb, 12 2007 @ 02:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by A SINCLAIR

ON the ORD incident. If it hapened, and I believe it did, then there were a multitude of witnesses. If the duration of the sighting was accurate then there MUST be some good photos out there at least. My main concern is the amount of time that passed between the reporting of the sighting and the date of the sighting. Why such a huge gap?

AS


No one knows the answer to that question except the people who have the pictures. I can say that John Hilevitch is in contact with me and he is still engaged with this story, we are still engaged with this story, I am planning on being in Chicago in early March with the hope of meeting with the witnesses.

IF we can get the word out (many, many people who live in and around Chicagoland have stated they never heard about this event until they read about it here) in a BIG WAY we might have a chance at getting more images.

One obvious explanation for the "gap" is people are negotiating with other media outlets for the best offer "money wise" for their images. Who knows?

I for one, believe that something incredible happened over O'Hare in November, 2006. That being said, all I can do is pursue it with the resources I have at hand and in conjunction with those who are willing to help in that pursuit.

The reality is nobody owes us a single image. Our timeline is meaningless to those who have the images, our desire for the images is meaningless to those people unless they decide to share them.


Springer...



posted on Feb, 13 2007 @ 10:14 AM
link   
Springer, I believe that you mentioned that you spoke to Hilkevitch on the phone recently and stated that he was still up with the O'Hare story.

Did he mention anything about his vacation? That was a big topic around here, as you remembered. I'm just wondering whether he actually went on vacation, or was engaged in further "unofficial" investigation and interviewing about this incident.

I guess he probably wouldn't have told you, but if he did, what did he say?



posted on Feb, 13 2007 @ 08:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by A SINCLAIR
ON the ORD incident. If it hapened, and I believe it did, then there were a multitude of witnesses. If the duration of the sighting was accurate then there MUST be some good photos out there at least. My main concern is the amount of time that passed between the reporting of the sighting and the date of the sighting. Why such a huge gap?

AS


Nuforc says they got a report on 11/21 ... two weeks

NUFOC report

The pictures - that's another story.

[edit on 2/13/2007 by roadgravel]

[edit on 2/13/2007 by roadgravel]



posted on Feb, 13 2007 @ 08:48 PM
link   
Hey Dan, hows it going, love your film and TV work!

Now, will you please post the video here since I stroked your ego a little?



posted on Feb, 14 2007 @ 02:42 AM
link   

Originally posted by D.Gribble
You have to give it up to an SNL alum who is seen on the same pedestal as Bill Murray to take a chance and go against the mainstream and make movies about ufos, I mean you are narrowing your audience with taking on subjects like that. If he wanted to make a buck he'd be making country music videos about supporting our troops or some kind of easy topic like that.


I like that Aykroyd is willing to go public with ufos. But no, it doesn't follow that he would try to make a buck off country music or anything else that didn't interest him. The central question you're evading is, what do you, as a fellow ufo enthusiast, think of his holding on to smoking-gun evidence (which, btw, I don't think he possesses). If Aykroyd was a regular joe-smoe nobody who happened to take a video of the O'hare incident, would you Aykroyd apologists be going out of your way to pre-defend (you don't even know if he has it) his supposed actions? Look past your celebrity bias and realize an action like that, after 60 years of secrecy and deception, isn't acceptable. I'll repeat what I said before: guys like Brian Vike or Peter Davenport wouldn't wait to make a DVD. If they had it, we'd be watching it now, so don't put Aykroyd on too high a pedestal. There are plenty of folks who deserve a lot more accolades regarding ufo disclosure than he does.



posted on Feb, 14 2007 @ 04:08 AM
link   
UFO organisations that keep evidence in secret are as bad as goverments that perpetuate the cover-up in the first place.

I've read most of this thread and I don't want to pre-judge Akroyd. However, if he does have some evidence related to the O'Hare sighting, then it would be wise to release it as soon as possible.

I wouldn't even care if it was later proved to be faked, at least that way he could state that he had no time for professional analysis. Get it out in the public and let the public smash it up. If it survives the skeptics, then it has to be good. We're all waiting for a 'smoking-gun', so we wouldn't care too much if it turns out to be proved fake. We're used to that, it wouldn't be a surprise.

I couldn't hit the internet fast enough if I managed to capture a very convincing UFO video or still pictures... I'd post anywhere and everywhere that I could!



posted on Feb, 14 2007 @ 08:28 AM
link   

Originally posted by Springer
I KNOW I am not a spook and I KNOW Simon and S.O. aren't either...


Are we supposed to accept your word as PROOF.

Extraordinary Claims require extraordinary proof.




posted on Dec, 13 2007 @ 05:14 PM
link   
Hello, I will be making a post very soon about D S :/



posted on Dec, 13 2007 @ 05:22 PM
link   
I made a post in another forum about the last video I saw from David Sereda and Dan 'Smoking Gun Nasa Files' or something like that. I had a response from somebody who actually DOES know what hes talking about and It changed my opinion of these two people who I now think are out there for the money and the money only. Sorry to piss on anybodys chips. This is his opinion of a few areas in the video and it seems that Sereda hasn't got a clue what hes talking about.
Right.. watched about half of it so far (then the connection packed up)..

Throughout we have massive jumps in logic with no backup or explanation along with a (deliberately) very poor understanding of some basic concepts in physics and absurd over analysis of some very poor data using some extremely limited (i.e. simplfied) maths and physics.

This person.. in my opinion.. is no scientist or mathematician...



Early on.. some real basic mistakes. What is all this ho-hah about objects that have a high energy therefore can only be seen in UV? Cobblers..

E=hf is a basic version of something about photons (and related to QM)... true indeed. How the hell he extracted from that that high energy objects (whatever he means by that) will be visibile in the UV I dont know. This man knows nothing about basic physics (and im talking GCSE/ A level here).

All objects with a finite temperature radiate across the EM Spectrum. Go look up something like blackbody spectrum on wikipedia. The peak emission region varies depending on your temperature. None of this "high energy = emit in UV only" type crap.

E=mc^2 is a (simplifed!) statement to do with special relativity. How the hell he is equating this directly with the E=hf I dont know.

Besides.. if you have 'high freq' photons, therefore each photon has a 'high' energy.. this does NOT equate to a large amount of energy overall .. very basic thermodynamics.. go look up something on wikipedia about sparks and bathtubs of warm water to get an idea.

Then he comes out with some sort of statement that E=mc^2 is somehow the thing that describes how objects, as they approach the speed of light, increase in mass... cobblers... its basic special relativity.

Use of centigrade instead of Celsius.. ill let him off with that as he is American.

Because of "nuclear reactions in water" these so called water balls would burn up due to solar radiation! Hehehe.. dont know where to start with this other than Cobblers.. you dont dont know what you are talking about..he is just throwing some science words about...

So these objects are not showing up in IR? but they have a finite temp... see above.. cobblers..

Dr Louis Frank - had a quick look up on him... hasnt written a single peer reviewed article in a respected astrophysical journal that I can find.. (remember I may have access to journals and that which require academic registration.. hence you may not be able to look everywhere I can but have a go.. find one for me please and ill read it).

WHOAHH - high energy quantimised object? bet this bloke couldnt write down any simple equations of QM.. What the hell is he waffling on about? Hes making words up as if they mean something.. get him to explain what that is..

In fact get him to show me the Schroedinger equation.. or a Hamiltonian.. my guess is he knows NOTHING of real QM.. like all the other woo-woos

Hhence ufo ? whoah. howd that happen...

Nice little bit there from the letter from the other scientist... about what proper science is - listen again to the bit about "no demonstrable evidence for.. but some against.."

why does water need a membrane to 'protect it"?
Does he know anything about deep space objects and observations of H, water, hydrocarbons etc.. there are thousands of papers you can look up on this.. hes making stuff up again.

Who said the DOD used their satellites to look for these objects? noone said that!!! He just jumped and came out with it... the other scientist was explaining there was no other evidence that he knew of



posted on Dec, 13 2007 @ 05:23 PM
link   
for these objects.

This high speed turn of objects from the shuttle business... what the hell does he mean by a fireball leaving the 'zero point' of Earth? Again.. made up pseudo-scientific words..

Objects have to have 'internal energy in it to escape earth leading to possibility of ufo?' wtf ... cobblers.. does he know what he means by internal energy? ALL Objects possess internal energy... its a catch all term to include all the 'internal' types of potential and kinetic energies, bond energies, binding energies, rotational etc... whats this about having to be a UFO then? eh?
Objects escape from the Earths Atmosphere all the time..

High speed turn? without reference he doesnt know size or speed of any of these!!! Really.. he can tell from that extremely low quality and low res image, without any external refernces.. the size and speed of objects.. then hes a better man than I ( and a better man than any sensible scientist or video analysis expert.. go take a silent, black and white, grainy camcorder video of some balls your mate throws into the air on a dark night.. then get a friend to estimate sizes, distances etc... )


Where DOES he get them mph figures? he makes em up thats where...
g forces on turn would destroy it? heard of particles mister? he assuming an awful lot here.. i.e. everything... theres no real way of measuring the size/speed of htose objects.. all properties like that are interlinked.. if you think you know what the object is you MIGHT be able to estimate size.. hence some sort of rough speed.. maybe...if they are big jumbo jets moving at 100000 mph I agree they wont spin on a 50 p piece easily.. but from that video you can tell nothing... just as a matter of interest go look up a good article on Brownian motion.. g forces on large objects? pffft...
mass into energy = no weight!!!! hehehe sorry.. just getting back into my chair.. this man obviously does NOT understand the bare basics of physics then.. thats proven it.. hehehe.. hehehe... Let use just the stuff he quoted.. remember E=mc^2.. mass and energy are EQUIVALENT.. large 'energy' means large mass... same thing.. same behaviour and effect (i.e. gravity)

"no physicist can look without admiiting dust or some sort of debris".. exactly..

object disappearing into horizon .. sigh... not absolutely conclusive at all... does the camera pick up every sodding particle in its field of view? how the hell do you determine distance from that poor image...let alone perspective effects and obscuration..

omg on assuming speeds from such crap data..
D HE3 fusion... non radioactive fusion?? Ermm.. hes confusing fission with fusion methinks.. this man may not do that well in a GCSE exam at this rate..

test flight? poor distance assumptions again.. going round earth? why..

see an object from 200 miles?? how about satellites? hence must be half a km??? wtf.. go talk to EXPERT air spotters.. ask them about they judge distances.. you need a good frame of reference.. being able to tell the distance/speed/size of a dot on a crap video is damn near impossible... typical made up rubbish from the ufo woo-woos...



posted on Dec, 13 2007 @ 05:23 PM
link   
assume astronauts not talking about space debris?? have a word.. have you seen what a piece of 'space debris' can do to spacesuits? howd you make that assumption?? they would mention anything like.. basic safety routine.. there is heaps of logs like this available from NASA>. go ask the people who were there.. read interviews with REAL astronauts and ask them... this is important day to day stuff for people in spacewalks..


meteors dont burn up?? cobblers... crap film.. howd he tell distance and atmosphere from that?



leaving earths atmosphere > internal energy > suggest intelligence - cobblers... this man is just throwing words about in the hope that people think some science is going on... how the hell he makes them connections like that in a sentence is beyond me... ALL objects possess internal energy.. theres nothng special or wierd about that.. and why that then means it has intelligence.. hehe... so this remote control, spec of dust, bit of blu tak, monitor, pen and that in front of me must be intelligent life then.. ok..


trying to find mir - debris and mir.. cant tell the difference.. no .. not really... they just couldnt find a good view of mir... debris/mir etc appear as spots of light.. why not distingrate? takes time.. they are moving slow in orbit along with shuttle...



new topics

top topics



 
1
<< 3  4  5    7 >>

log in

join