It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Thank you.

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

Help ATS via PayPal:

# Steven M. Greer releases UFO photographs!

page: 4
7
share:

posted on Apr, 20 2007 @ 05:12 PM

Originally posted by Dulcimer
This thread gave me some good laughs.
Undeniable proof.

Period.

LOL that's hilarious.
That doesn't prove anything...
We are not even looking at the same thing.

Undeniable proof RIGHT>>> if you are drunk or completely stone

[edit on 20-4-2007 by RichardLalancette]

posted on Apr, 20 2007 @ 05:14 PM
I'll give you a little science to help:

taken from: www.opendb.com...

For the record, here is a summary of the facts and reasoning that Escamilla continues to ignore, even while continuing to claim that he has "ruled out" motion-blurred bugs:

If a camcorder is shooting at its slowest shutter speed, 1/60th second, then ordinary bugs (or tinfoil balls) will easily make a "rod," and they don't have to be flying very fast to do it. The length of the "rod" is just the distance traveled in 1/60th second. A bug flying 41 MPH will make a foot-long rod, and if the bug is actually closer to the camera than it appears, then a bug flying half that fast or even slower can make an impressive "rod," just because it moved forward many times its own width in that 1/60th second. For example, if a 1/4-inch wide bug is flying a mere 10 MPH, then it makes a 3-inch "rod" in 1/60th second, which is 12 times longer than it is wide. If you don't know how far away that bug is, then it might look like it's a yard long, or it might even look like it's a hundred feet long if you assume that it's a long way off.

NTSC video is about 30 frames per second, but each frame is actually two "interlaced" fields of alternating scan lines: The first field has the odd numbered scan lines and the other field has the even numbered scan lines. But the fields are captured consecutively, not simultaneously, so NTSC video is actually about 60 fields per second. (TV monitors draw the first field in 1/60th second, skipping the even-numbered scan lines, then return to the top to draw the second field in those skipped lines in the next 1/60th second.)

If a camcorder is shooting 1/60th second exposures while it's capturing 60 fields per second, then the exposure is really continuous, so the "rods" made by a flying bug or tinfoil ball will form a continuous streak across all the fields.

If you put those "rods" from all the fields into one image, then you see that continuous streak. However, if you only take one field from each frame (which is what some VCRs do when paused and advanced), then you see the "rods" separated by gaps the same length as the "rods." (The fields that aren't being shown have "rods" in each of those gaps.)

ALL of Jose Escamilla's "rods" (except for one) and ALL the others that I've found on the Web show one or the other of those two patterns. And Escamilla's one exception shows the precise pattern produced if the camcorder was shooting a bug with 1/100th second exposures instead of 1/60th -- gaps that are 2-1/3 times longer than the "rods" -- which "just happens" to be the next step up in most camcorders.

posted on Apr, 20 2007 @ 05:14 PM
Just to post it again so it is seen on this page:

This thread gave me some good laughs.

And now for the explanation:

First view this image:
www.cseti.org...

Now view this image:
photos.jpgmag.com...

jpgmag.com...

Long exposure capturing the reflected light trails of moths as they circle some floodlights.

Undeniable proof.

Period.

How is it different? Please give me a list of reasons as to how the photos are different.

posted on Apr, 20 2007 @ 05:15 PM

Originally posted by torsion
Of course he's not going to criticise Greer/CSETI. Visit his blog and you'll see all the praise and direct links to CSETI so that other unwary people can be parted from their money.

In the same way you are not going to disagree with Richard/Tock as you personal blog has a direct link to his... as well as links to Greer/Disclosure/CSETI so we can hardly call you two guys impartial, can we?

Wrong again.
I praise free energy devices, Tom Bearden, Steven Bassett, Alfred Webre, Steven Greer, Peace, love and compassion, spirituality, quantum physics, various other great articles...
I also cover the work of the shadow government.

You really see what you want to see

posted on Apr, 20 2007 @ 05:18 PM
Sorry Dulcimer, I didn't mean to be rude.

If you look at both pictures, one has long streaks of lights taken on long exposure.

The other is a cylindrical object with one large wing going all around it's body, taken on a single frame with much shorter exposure.

2 very different phenomena.

posted on Apr, 20 2007 @ 05:18 PM

Is the same as...

Just not as close to the camera, obviously.

Ok.

So I have given you the pictures, links and science. What do you offer in return other than your opinion?

This is a world of give and take.

posted on Apr, 20 2007 @ 05:19 PM
Yet another:
www.wfu.edu...

posted on Apr, 20 2007 @ 05:19 PM

Originally posted by RichardLalancette
There is a need for a consciousness shift before they even consider landing, IMO.

You've got it wrong again, Richard. Greer has told us they've already landed. He was abducted, remember!

And hasn't that blue 'awesome quantum/energy state craft' landed on those rocks in the Joshua Tree photo? Or is it just hovering?

posted on Apr, 20 2007 @ 05:24 PM
Darn, the first picture is crappy.
Not much we can say about it, sorry

posted on Apr, 20 2007 @ 05:27 PM

Originally posted by torsion

You've got it wrong again, Richard. Greer has told us they've already landed. He was abducted, remember!

And hasn't that blue 'awesome quantum/energy state craft' landed on those rocks in the Joshua Tree photo? Or is it just hovering?

Steven Greer abducted? You're making stuff up now? He has been in contact with them, but not abducted. You should read past the first chapter of his book, you would get a better Idea what the man is about

Until then, I think I'll just ignore your comments since you don't have any clue whatsoever about the man, but you are fairly good at speculating

As for the blue halo thing, I have no idea. All I know is that it's unidentified and it was seen many times during other trainings.

posted on Apr, 20 2007 @ 05:29 PM

Originally posted by Dulcimer
Yet another:
www.wfu.edu...

Too poor quality to make any remarks on that too. I opened it in photoshop, but there isn't much was can compare both.

posted on Apr, 20 2007 @ 05:31 PM
Some nice rods here:

www.dudeman.net...

You see a clear circular body, with a large band all around it.
On all pictures.

posted on Apr, 20 2007 @ 05:34 PM
Nice finds timb3r and Dulcimer, and good solid proof.

Come on Richard, the ball is in your court.

We await your counter proof that what is in the photo is really an 'extraterrestrial energy communication anchor', or whatever...

Also give us some credible evidence that the moth in pic 2 isn't a moth even though it has moth's wings, moth's legs, moth's antenna and comes out at night like moths and lives in the woods like moths do...

but please, credible evidence only, no more nonsense from Uranus!

posted on Apr, 20 2007 @ 05:35 PM
The Joshua-tree photo light really looks like the kind of light that is produced with these:

www.surefire.com...

The glow is very similar.

I have a flashlight that produces the same color.

Im not saying that is what is happening in this photo, but it is very similar. In fact in the photo it looks like the light source is placed just behind the rock.

The only thing the photo has going for it is that it is in the daytime, and im not sure you could produce the same amount of light using said method.

Photo in question:
www.cseti.org...

posted on Apr, 20 2007 @ 05:37 PM
Everyone knows moths are attracted to lights.

Are "light anchors" attracted to sony digital camcorders?

posted on Apr, 20 2007 @ 05:40 PM
Well, we all know, any pictures can be reproduced by optical effects, CGI or other tricks. Any.

Any amount of pictures and video will never be enough.
Only one thing that can turn a skeptic into a believer. A sighting.
I was a skeptic before May 2006.

So we can only speculate on what we see on pictures. And we can give more or less credibility depending if we trust the organisation putting out the pictures.
I've met with 5 CSETI members so far, and they are good people, just like you and Me, trying to do their best to understand what this is all about.

posted on Apr, 20 2007 @ 05:42 PM

Originally posted by RichardLalancette
As for the blue halo thing, I have no idea. All I know is that it's unidentified and it was seen many times during other trainings.

What? Only a few posts ago you said it was a 'quantum/energy state craft'! Now you say you don't know what it is!! They don't conduct any kind of lobotomy on people who go on these Ambassador to the Universe training sessions, do they?!!

posted on Apr, 20 2007 @ 05:42 PM

Originally posted by Dulcimer
Everyone knows moths are attracted to lights.

Are "light anchors" attracted to sony digital camcorders?

Looking at the picture, was that camera set to night-vision? I don't think the guy had a light turned on.

In Mt Shasta, I have seen between 1 and 5 objects flying with great velocity each night. Very strange stuff. Darker objects, and they flew many times faster than jets.

posted on Apr, 20 2007 @ 05:48 PM

Originally posted by torsion

Originally posted by RichardLalancette
As for the blue halo thing, I have no idea. All I know is that it's unidentified and it was seen many times during other trainings.

What? Only a few posts ago you said it was a 'quantum/energy state craft'! Now you say you don't know what it is!! They don't conduct any kind of lobotomy on people who go on these Ambassador to the Universe training sessions, do they?!!

You asked if it was on ground. I have no idea if it's floating or on ground...
No need to be so rude, Or maybe we should get a moderator to look at your attitude on these boards? If have been fairly insulting ever since we started discussing here. So watch your language.

[edit on 20-4-2007 by RichardLalancette]

posted on Apr, 20 2007 @ 05:53 PM

Originally posted by torsion
Nice finds timb3r and Dulcimer, and good solid proof.

Come on Richard, the ball is in your court.

We await your counter proof that what is in the photo is really an 'extraterrestrial energy communication anchor', or whatever...

Also give us some credible evidence that the moth in pic 2 isn't a moth even though it has moth's wings, moth's legs, moth's antenna and comes out at night like moths and lives in the woods like moths do...

but please, credible evidence only, no more nonsense from Uranus!

Follow the provided link, you will find other rods. The ones that look like CSETI picture. Clear and crisp. Not like the insect stuff people have been linking. I don't need to prove anything more than that. You have to prove me that it's an insect. Till then, it's unidentified.

new topics

top topics

7