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 recorded on video by Fox Photographer

page: 5
18
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 18 2008 @ 03:05 PM
link   

Originally posted by jritzmann
Now I'll tell you why I think you don't want to accept this as an answer: You're emotionally vested. You want this to be, something, and no one is going to tell you different. Why? Because you feel your reputation or intelligence is on the line, if nothing else.

It isn't. And there's nothing wrong with saying "they got me", or "I'm wrong, it was..." or "I didn't realize...". We all do this. It's how ya learn and we're all constantly doing that.


JRitzman,
First and foremost, I respect your work here in the ATS Forum.
This case is a severe exception.

I'm not emotionally vested, I've made no claim to date on this video.
So here's my 2 cents. The member you are having an argument with believes that the object passed behind the clouds due to his/her visual observation.

I don't believe in 'Rods', I'm pretty certain they are bugs in general.
I don't believe this is a case of the bug/rod phenomenon.

Evidence tells me this. You see, I actually took the time to slow down the video, and did a screen capture of the place in the video where the 'object' does indeed pass behind the clouds. This image is below, with a 200% enlargment. I've labeled the image with the adjustments I've made, and the timestamp is clearly visible.

Now, no offense JRitzman, like I said, I really like what you do here at ATS, but if you were attempting to PROVE that the object passed in front of the clouds instead of behind it, why didn't you do this work?

I came into this argument not knowing, and did the work.
It sure looks to me (a NON-Rod Believer) that it's passing behind that cloud.

Let's let the personal crap drop on all sides, debunkers as well as believers. What does the evidence tell you?

I'm going with Missile or UFO, due to the Evidence displayed below (from the Raw Video on Youtube):


Now if you've got some Evidence to argue otherwise, I'd love to see it, and you can bet that if your Evidence proves your argument, I'll be your strongest supporter.




posted on Jan, 18 2008 @ 03:12 PM
link   
It looks like a missile, it has those four flaps.
I think its pretty clear that its a photo reconnaissance equipment, like predator which is used my u.s.a quire frequently in wars, could be aliens who using to spy on us.



posted on Jan, 18 2008 @ 03:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by HitmanOnline
It looks like a missile, it has those four flaps.
I think its pretty clear that its a photo reconnaissance equipment, like predator which is used my u.s.a quire frequently in wars, could be aliens who using to spy on us.



Can you find a photo on the web of this equipment?

Would be used for comparison purposes. thanks

Or could you give us a link to a page with a photo on it?



posted on Jan, 18 2008 @ 03:20 PM
link   
Its not that easy you know.



posted on Jan, 18 2008 @ 03:33 PM
link   
reply to post by SimonSays
 


That was thought to be a very fast missile.
The short stubby wings and all.

Wings apparently vertical to flight however.

Not a speedy zeppelin or airship cause how would it land.

This must have appeared before the 2006 posting as I recall this
as I posted it on a boring stock message board.

I id it as a Quad coil Tesla Super Zeppelin ( Hitlers favorite hitech
wonder craft) and an ex Air force Officer came out with its a rod.

Neither of which have come out from the fantasy closet.

But I like streams of electrons perpendicular to flight than metal or
rod wings or other doubters and deniers agendas.


ED: I don't want to get into the body being ill defined as thats what comes
with being powered by million volt plasma motors. Four as it appears.




[edit on 1/18/2008 by TeslaandLyne]



posted on Jan, 18 2008 @ 04:00 PM
link   

"Rod's" always have a characteristic corkscrew effect caused by the wings of the moth or insect flapping. If you notice on this, no corkscrew.


That's why it's not a rod/insect. It demonstrates a solid unchanging shape in each frame.

If I remember correctly, the reporter said that video experts concluded that the thing went behind the cloud. One would think that those same experts would be aware of the interlacing effect that may have created the illusion of it being behind the clouds, and then discounted it, using their expert knowledge of video.

Of course, who knows who these experts are, and what their level of expertise is. But it does throw a wrench in the "You don't know video, and it's clearly an illusion that it's behind the clouds" argument.



posted on Jan, 18 2008 @ 04:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by Electro38
If it was a missle, why don't we see any evidence of heat or a contrail behind it?


[edit on 18-1-2008 by Electro38]


According to the reporter who took the video the object emits a clear streak, it's visible in the original video, not visible in Youtube's lousy compressed video.

You can read that statement in one of the comments he posted at Youtube:
www.youtube.com...



posted on Jan, 18 2008 @ 04:28 PM
link   
I'm not saying for certain that this is an AIM 7 Sparrow Missile, just so that is clear.

I thought it would be good to post some comparison data of the missile in question, though, since it seems from the evidence presented to be the best shot at a terrestrial explanation for this object...

The Missile:


The Missile in flight, immediately after firing (shows size comparison to the jet, and initial firing reveals a smoke trail:


The Missile next to a human, again for size comparison:


The breakdown on the missile's components:

This information comes from here:
www.f-15estrikeeagle.com...
According to the site, the missile goes supersonic in it's initial stage of flight.

Once again for clarity, I'm not claiming with any sort of certainty that this object is an AIM 7 Sparrow Missile, I'm just posting data on the missile since it seems (right now) like the best candidate for a terrestrial explanation.



posted on Jan, 18 2008 @ 04:50 PM
link   
reply to post by WitnessFromAfar
 


Hi-You're going from the standpoint that what you see is actually what visually occurred. Sir/ma'am, it's video. You're pulling frames off online video. Please know I don't mean this in malice when I say: give me a break-we just dont know that. We need more.

The object in question, to me is clearly a "rod" object. "Rods" are bugs (IMO). Therefore do I think it's a huge rod going behind a cloud or interlacing artifacts/frame rates from a blurred insect in flight.

I give up man. I can talk til I'm blue and it wont make any difference. I'm giving my educated opinion, as someone who's worked in imaging over 20 years and spent a large part of it doing UFO photo and video exams. Ok?

There's nothing to prove here, because there's not enough to stake my rep on, much less stake it on an online video. If there were more compelling data, I'd be all over it. My track record here shows that.

Again, this is what I see, looking at the same thing everyone else is.

You want a thorough analysis...you go ahead and track down a solid dub of the original footage.

Now, I'll give ya something I dont usually, which is how I'm feeling about all this...this particular scenario, which is becoming a regular thing. This isnt directed at anyone...this is whats in my head right now:

What's supposed to be a simple opinion given at the request of the ATS owner turns into a part time job in trying to explain opinions to those who just wont accept the limitations of video and photos.

I'm to this point where every time Springer gets me to post a response to any photos or video, I'm continuously being "told off" or poked for my opinion, or insinuations that I didn't do this or that.

The fact that I'm being asked to prove an online video is just absurd to me. This is because people just don't realize what they're doing, nor basing their argument on. I've laid my public ass on the line many times (O'Hare, etc) knowing I did the best I could do, when given the best data possible.

Unfortunately, people have to go do the reading of different video behaviors themselves, because I cant be everyone's reader's digest every thread that comes up.

I hate to say it, but I've been telling Dave Biedny for a few weeks now that I'm about ready to just dump ATS and be done with it then stand around for the next round of nasty posts or emails when I give an opinion, or a full blown exam.

After all the work I've done in here, it's like I have to consistently work from a negative...and I'm really at the end of my rope with it.



[edit on 18-1-2008 by jritzmann]



posted on Jan, 18 2008 @ 04:58 PM
link   
I'm working on some comparison photos of the video object
and of the aim-7. I should have that later tonight. But right now
I'm gonna have some dinner with my family first.

I'll be back in a few with some other evidence



posted on Jan, 18 2008 @ 05:23 PM
link   
reply to post by jritzmann
 


JRitzman, thank you for your reply. I'm very sorry you are feeling that way. I understand that you take a lot of crap from the uninformed, and that isn't any fun at all.

I apologize if you took my post personally, I didn't mean offense.

I guess we've come to the point though, and that is:
"It's your opinion that the video contains a rod".

Thank you for your opinion. I'm glad that you were asked to come here and give it.

What I responded to was your outright attack on another ATS member.
Everybody gets frustrated, it's cool, but somebody needed to say something rational. You were at the point where you were dismissing other people's comments as idiocy, and it seemed to me that the member in question was only posting what he/she saw.

I didn't see the comments as idiocy, and I still don't. It is perfectly understandable that when viewing an image such as the one I posted of the video in question, that a viewer would come to the conclusion that the object was behind that cloud. I am still of that opinion.

Perhaps, if this was in fact a combination image overlay (as I believe you are suggesting) you could illustrate that for those of us who clearly don't 'get it'.

A processing error such as what is described SHOULD show both the cloud and the 'object' blurred together, should it not?

That isn't what we see in the video. What we see is most assuredly sections of the 'object' fully blocked by white cloud.

Now, you're right, I'm not an image expert, but I do understand a bit about optics. I understand that light (photons) bounce off of objects with mass and are reflected. I understand that in this instance, light bounced off of an object and was caught on camera. Light also bounced off of the cloud and was caught on camera. The light from the cloud occludes the light from the object, suggesting that the cloud is in front of the object.

Now I'm sorry you are upset here, but being upset doesn't make your opinion any more valid than the opinion of Simon Says, who claims to see it pass behind the clouds. I've provided the image in question for study. From the image, it appears that Simon's take was more accurate.

If you can illustrate in order to educate just once, it may save you the trouble of trying to explain yourself through words as often as it appears you do.

Once again, I'm sorry you are so upset by all of this. I meant no offense, it really confused me as to why you hadn't posted an image analysis. I get it now, in your opinion it wasn't worth your effort. I believe that it is worth my effort, and I'll hope you can respect my continuing to investigate this case.

I also feel that many threads here at ATS would be severely lacking in rational analysis should you decide to actually stop being active here. I hope that doesn't happen. Even in disagreement, I appreciate what you have to say about these issues.

Also, I'm a guy. That isn't really clear in my username!



posted on Jan, 18 2008 @ 06:19 PM
link   
reply to post by Crakeur
 


Crakeur,

I was in the U.S. Navy for 10 years. I have also seen many
missiles fired. What the other guy is completely ignoring is
that this so called missile has NO exhaust!
ALL the missiles that I have seen fired have a large white
plume of smoke coming out the rear of the missile.
I think this a large spacecraft.
It would help to know the distance from the camera.
It could be a mile long. It's hard to say. I need a point of reference.
That plane flying by helps but not much.



posted on Jan, 18 2008 @ 06:36 PM
link   
just to point out - it it is a AIM-7 " sparrow" missile or one of its familiy as some people claim then based on size , it is most certainly NOT > 5000 feet altitude , and NOT passing being the cloud



posted on Jan, 18 2008 @ 06:50 PM
link   
reply to post by ignorant_ape
 


Wow i hope you come back and edit that . It makes no sence what-so-ever .

I think its the basic rod that has been shown a few times here . But what do i know eh?



posted on Jan, 18 2008 @ 06:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by Eurisko2012
reply to post by Crakeur
 


Crakeur,

I was in the U.S. Navy for 10 years. I have also seen many
missiles fired. What the other guy is completely ignoring is
that this so called missile has NO exhaust!
ALL the missiles that I have seen fired have a large white
plume of smoke coming out the rear of the missile.
I think this a large spacecraft.
It would help to know the distance from the camera.
It could be a mile long. It's hard to say. I need a point of reference.
That plane flying by helps but not much.


According to the reporter who took the video the object emits a clear streak, it's visible in the original video, not visible in Youtube's lousy compressed video.

You can read that statement in one of the comments he posted at Youtube:
www.youtube.com...



posted on Jan, 18 2008 @ 06:52 PM
link   
I find it quiet funny that people think these flying insects are UFO's.





posted on Jan, 18 2008 @ 06:59 PM
link   

Originally posted by Armin
I find it quiet funny that people think these flying insects are UFO's.




I think it's a missile but I wanted to make a quick comment on the picture you posted. None of the "rods" in that picture look anything like the object from this thread.



posted on Jan, 18 2008 @ 07:10 PM
link   
reply to post by hsur2112
 


I am NO camera expert BUT I do know that the people who reported this risked looking like IDIOTS by reporting it and they obviously spent alot of time using HIGH dollar equipment the likes of which you me and probably the example you gave have no access to. So I trust them when they say it went behind the cloud cover, if it were a video anomaly or even close I think they would have reported that.

I do have to say thank you though, me saying "you lose" sounded extremely ignorant and arrogant, which it was of me to say.



posted on Jan, 18 2008 @ 07:13 PM
link   
Photo comparison evidence debunking the Aim-7
Missile Theory
















posted on Jan, 18 2008 @ 07:28 PM
link   




top topics



 
18
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join