Gulf Breeze daylight UFO footage.

reply to post by jritzmann

The underside of the craft, and it's "substance pile" on the road is all you see. Most of the original photo is black. The "exhaust port" is a bit brighter then the substance if I recall correctly.

i never got to see a real good copy of the original as you have but one last question i have is did the plasma looking anomaly on the road change at all when you peeled away each layer during the enhancing ?

in other words , in each layer was the appearance of that anomaly 100% the same ?

reply to post by V Kaminski


in the GoogleVideo link, i see a string, and i see a slight arc to the path it's swinging in...

Originally posted by easynow
reply to post by jritzmann

 

The underside of the craft, and it's "substance pile" on the road is all you see. Most of the original photo is black. The "exhaust port" is a bit brighter then the substance if I recall correctly.

i never got to see a real good copy of the original as you have but one last question i have is did the plasma looking anomaly on the road change at all when you peeled away each layer during the enhancing ?

in other words , in each layer was the appearance of that anomaly 100% the same ?

I have not seen the direct peels. As I understand that was done by Polaroid. I can guess that it wouldn't change per se, but would have more levels of detail where it wasn't over exposed with light, presumably at it's dissipating edges. As I said, the original Polaroid was only the bright spots (road/exhaust). That's why the machine at Polaroid had to be used to brighten and get detail from the photo at all, not to mention all the work Bruce and Sainio did on it.

[edit on 25-11-2008 by jritzmann]

Originally posted by V Kaminski
There are some other dazzling vids associated with Gulf Breeze/Redfish. I believe this YouTube Link was concerning the Eckert family sighting of Set 2 1991.

I believe that's Bruce and Ann Morrison's video. They recorded quite a lot of footage, and were die-hard skywatchers.

[edit on 25-11-2008 by jritzmann]

Originally posted by Phage
An engineer who: a) does not understand electromotive force and the Lenz effect or, b) is lying.

Great endorsement, eh?

OR

He knows something YOU don't know

I find it amusing how skeptics always make these guys who work in the field out to be idiots and nut cases... just because they try to show something that doesn't fit with main stream thinking

:shk:

Originally posted by V Kaminski
Gulf Breeze has quite a history even discounting all the Ed Flander's "controversy". The OP video isn't very good and there is better out there Google Video Link.

When you suspend an object from a wire or line tied to the end of a pole and swing it back and forth in front of a camera, it makes a slight arc no matter how careful you are. Just saying

Which expert authenticated this

If one is an obvious fake it forces one to conclude that all material from that person is fake. To do anything else would be less than honest. The arc of the motion back and forth is very damning.

Originally posted by adrenochrome
reply to post by V Kaminski

 

in the GoogleVideo link, i see a string, and i see a slight arc to the path it's swinging in...

I knew I should have read the whole thread before I posted that. You noticed as well.

Originally posted by zorgon

He knows something YOU don't know

How to be disingenuous and deceitful? How to support other hoaxers like John Hutchinson.

Nope. Don't know how to bring myself to do that.



[edit on 25-11-2008 by Phage]

Originally posted by jritzmann
The odd shape is due to light blasting on the photo, which over compensates the brightness, making it appear a bit distorted.

I don't know. Even with the light blasting, I would expect certain shapes to remain either relatively undistorted, or at least consistently distorted. As it is, I've tried lining up the various elements of the craft, and they're all bent out of shape. They look as bent as paper plates! The ellipses and curves are horribly irregular, and don't line up correctly with each other, or with any kind of perspective I try.

I'm not sure about the road, either. The way the photo is taken, how high up from the road is the photographer? Where is the real horizon line? If we go by the ellipse at the bottom of the craft, the craft itself would seem to be a good 6 or 7 degrees above the horizon of photographer, and yet the road appears to be about the same distance lower than the photographer, as if he's elevated above the road on a small hill. And there's just not enough angle between the two to make sense. Even accounting for the various distortions.

I can only assume that the aliens don't know how to make a proper circle or stack their components accurately, or that the distortion in the photo is so bad that no useful information can be gathered from it.

Originally posted by karl 12
Anyone any objective opinions on the orignal post footage?

Object ejecting another one:

object at around 0:42 on video:

Object at around 1;22:

Water on windscreen or sphere UFO?:

Insect or fast moving UFO?:

Originally posted by karl 12
Anyone any objective opinions on the orignal post footage?

1) Object ejecting another one:

'Critter' giving birth

2) object at around 0:42 on video:

'Critter' giving birth

3) Object at around 1;22:

'Critter' giving birth

4) Water on windscreen or sphere UFO?:

Water drop

5) Insect or fast moving UFO?:

No clue but not a UFO


[edit on 25-11-2008 by zorgon]

reply to post by Nohup


You're talking about multiple layers of emulsion being light blasted and put back together. We also have to take into account that the craft was often reported by Walters and others to be "rocking". Could that account for some distortion? I don't know if that was the case here in this shot. Ed was in his truck, I believe a bit slumped down.

As I said, to see the original, it's relatively unimpressive. It isn't until work is done on it that things get more defined. We are after all talking about old Polaroid film, subjected to squishing when pulled out thru rollers.

You might want to take a look at the underside shot, which shows under magnification and burn, a thermal event clearly going on. This shot I know the craft was reported to be "rocking wildly" and the "plasma" or whatever the substance is, is very clearly leaving the edge of the undercarriage.

But, as far as the perspective issues you see, we could just as easily say the "stack" you refer to is bending...like a wire hose. We have no idea about the mechanics of how it works. However in seeing the original, I can tell that the issue you're talking about is definitely a result of enhancement of detail.

Originally posted by jritzmann We have no idea about the mechanics of how it works.

Hey do you have a list of UFO's that you consider real? Or at least 'best case'? Don't have time to go through all the threads and hoped you would have a favorites list

and then there is this...
Once more into the frey

My beef with the Billy Meier case....
www.abovetopsecret.com...



Has anyone else noticed that there seems to be a rash of threads started by a 'team' of newbies that make point and counter point in the first few posts? I can pull examples but I am sure others have noticed this?

Originally posted by zorgon
Hey do you have a list of UFO's that you consider real? Or at least 'best case'? Don't have time to go through all the threads and hoped you would have a favorites list

www.abovetopsecret.com...

Originally posted by zorgon
Hey do you have a list of UFO's that you consider real? Or at least 'best case'? Don't have time to go through all the threads and hoped you would have a favorites list

I don't have a particular list really, there's been so many over the years. Gulf Breeze would be fairly high on that list thought. Not just the Walters stuff, but the whole nutshell. Some of the Mexico stuff, Bentwaters, Malmstrom, 76 Tehran, McMinnville, and the RB_47 case are all interesting. None of the cases prove anything is "real" though...I think this enigma demands another definition of what that may mean.

Originally posted by zorgon
and then there is this...
Once more into the frey

My beef with the Billy Meier case....
www.abovetopsecret.com...

Has anyone else noticed that there seems to be a rash of threads started by a 'team' of newbies that make point and counter point in the first few posts? I can pull examples but I am sure others have noticed this?

Yeah well, there's definitely a consorted effort because this is the biggest, most visited UFO board on the net, and the lackey "Media Rep" can't post here because of his inability to control himself. So...they have to do something to try and keep Meier controversy rolling in the public forum. I've grown sick of replying to ridiculousness so I'm staying out of them.

But yes, it's either the same individual or small group actively doing it. Who cares, just ignore them and they go away.

Originally posted by jritzmann
.I think this enigma demands another definition of what that may mean.

Hehe Well I agree with that... I think 80%ish are actually "Critters"... a plasma energy life form.

It explains a lot of why we cannot find hard evidence. I know you probably think I am nuts on that but that's okay. I am still working on assembling the data

But some points...

They are transparent/translucent

They are spotted 'recharging' or 'feeding' near thunderstorms and other power sources

They change shape like an amoeba does. Makes a lot more sense then shape shifting spaceships

They are more visible in the IR spectrum, unless they have 'fed', which makes them glow brighter, thus more visible

They give 'birth' The Tallahassee Video one is a perfect example The reddish one that comes 'out' of the first one, that you can see moving around inside at first. Then once out it flits around playfully like a 'child'. A few of the Gulf Breeze videos show this as well

They are curious and playful but I don't yet know if they have intelligence as we know it... though they are definitely aware of us.

They appear as fuzzy morphing 'blobs' by day and glowing by night

I doubt we could 'shoot' one down...

IF they 'die' I don't expect to see any trace of them left as they are energy creatures

It explains their erratic flight behavior
It explains their random appearance everywhere
It explains their numbers all over the world

I find it possible that we are seeing more of them now because of the current changes in the energy from the Sun... but not enough data on this yet

They are harmless... I have yet to here of one of these doing any more harm to humans other than confusing the heck out of us

I believe NASA and the Gov know this but a huge naturally existing, barely visible life form that makes its home in local space and our atmosphere would freak out people more than Aliens would

In this Video from STS 80... in the second part with the thunderstorm, the camera man actually zooms back in on the first one... If NASA was NOT aware of these critters, why are they filming them in IR and following their action?



I have more but that will do for now...

as to the rest?

15%ish are our secret projects. I included ALL the triangles in this, as those only appeared in reports in recent history

5%ish are the 'Visitors'

I found in 35 years of looking at UFO's that the above approx percentage makes more sense and makes it easier to classify sightings

I also believe it possible that some paranormal sightings we call 'ghosts' are actually critters.

I think if more people looked at this as a possible explanation we might get interesting results



As a side note... if anyone considers this plausible and has seen evidence that fits my criteria above, please point me at it

Originally posted by karl 12
www.abovetopsecret.com...

Thanks for the list Karl

I will go through them today...

reply to post by zorgon


That's a really interesting premise Zorg, and is as good as any. However, I have to say it is vastly dependent on our own perceptions.

For example the erratic flight at times: this could be the product of our perceptions, and not really the true flight path. For that matter, they might not even be "flying", but moving through our reality from a stationary point...like seeing a small dot on a badly tuned TV set. The dot is transmitted as a still image , but because the horizontal and vertical controls are going crazy, it appears the dot is erratically jumping around on our viewing end.

The problem is, we don't have the fine tuning to possibly refine the perception.

We can no longer take the pedestrian, simplistic view of the UFO question any longer. I like to think the serious minded of us have moved past the ETH and are looking in new directions rather then the same old tired "theories" which aren't really theories at all, but suppositions.

You clearly think outside that box and I applaud you for it. Unfortunately you're in a minority, and the rest would rather blindly be spoon fed sci-fi, ego inflating, cash generating "answers" with no basis in relevant data...rather then to really think about it. Everyone wants the Reader's Digest version, and they want it now.

Well, to quote one of my favorite people: "You are not meant to be a consumer of the UFO....it is is not for your amusement."

As far as parallels in other paranormal phenomena: you are 100% correct. I have been studying more intently on "Paranormal" anomalies rather then exclusively UFOs for quite q long time now. There is connective tissue there, that we need to get a closer look at...and it may be that we have to do uncomfortable things to do that. I feel it could be worth it.



[edit on 26-11-2008 by jritzmann]