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: 7
18
<< 4  5  6    8  9 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 19 2008 @ 04:11 PM
link   
you can see part of the object coming out of the front of the cloud and another part behind the cloud. There is clearly a portion of the object that's blocked by cloud. This is not a shutter issue, open your eyes people. I have no idea what this object is, but it does go behind the clouds. That is one point you can not dispute. Debunking is a good thing when it's used to try and prove something wrong or right. It's not a good thing when everyone is so set on debunking something that they come up with anything they can to prove that it's wrong. You're trying too hard to prove that this is a bunk story, open your eyes and see the obvious.




posted on Jan, 19 2008 @ 04:13 PM
link   
reply to post by mandalorianwarrior1
 


I guess, you don't have a idea, who you are calling "a joke" and maybe you should do a quick check on the names.

Sorry, but people joining here and instantly starting to bash year long members with completely nonsensical arguments, are the real joke in this thread.



[edit on 19-1-2008 by Phil J. Fry]



posted on Jan, 19 2008 @ 04:17 PM
link   
Nope, I'm not the joke. I have been reading this thread from the start and joined because it's getting out of hand. Look at the tone that was used by this so called professional! He's attacking people with his better than thou attitude when it's obvious that this illusion story is bunk. I don't care who has what name and how long they have been a member. That gives no person the right to act better than the rest of us when spewing bunk. Talk about self entitlement. people that blindly follow like sheep and defend these types are part of the problem. I have read these boards for years and have had other membership ids for years. There isn't always a need to posta nd I hadn't for so long that I can not get into my previous account due to a password issue and no longer having my old email. This site has been slipping and it's this entitlement issue that is part of the reason. A lot of the "new" long term members can't hold a candle to some of the old guard.

[edit on 19-1-2008 by mandalorianwarrior1]



posted on Jan, 19 2008 @ 04:27 PM
link   
reply to post by mandalorianwarrior1
 


If you like it or not and if you want to call it arrogant or not won't change the fact, that in this specific field, David and Jeff ARE far more experienced then most of the members here.
Maybe you should check what you wrote ? You are not here, because anything has gotten "out of hand" ( by the way, there is an alert button to signal inappropriate stuff ), you are here to post your opinion, which you like to call a fact.
And really, you should check, who you are calling a joke.



posted on Jan, 19 2008 @ 04:29 PM
link   
The poster is not a joke, but what he was saying is a joke. I won't check that one bit. It's a joke for anyone to say that the object does not go behind the clouds, bottom line. I'm sure the "professional" has done a lot for this site and will continue to do so. This object did go behind the cloud. To say otherwise is a joke.

It is good to have two professionals who are willing to take their own time and put it towards trying to figure out this case. I just see so many of these experts on this site talking down to others and not always stating how they came to their findings. I have in fact agreed with their findings at times. However, this topic does not seem to have been handled on a professional level with the point about the cloud.

Just because the professional talked down to someone doesn't mean there needs to be a signal sent out. Let's be real. It's obvious that the attitude was over the line, but who's going to send that to a mod. Not on the level it was used.

It's also funny how my "opinion" doesn't count in your mind when I'm using visual observation. You'll listen to a so called "professional" who will find anyway to debunk what we have all seen on a video that has probably not been messed with. I'll take our visual observations over a "professional" opinion that talks of illusion. I guess it must have been swamp gas, whatever.

[edit on 19-1-2008 by mandalorianwarrior1]

[edit on 19-1-2008 by mandalorianwarrior1]



posted on Jan, 19 2008 @ 04:59 PM
link   

Originally posted by mandalorianwarrior1
The poster is not a joke, but what he was saying is a joke. I won't check that one bit. It's a joke for anyone to say that the object does not go behind the clouds, bottom line. I'm sure the "professional" has done a lot for this site and will continue to do so. This object did go behind the cloud. To say otherwise is a joke.

It is good to have two professionals who are willing to take their own time and put it towards trying to figure out this case. I just see so many of these experts on this site talking down to others and not always stating how they came to their findings. I have in fact agreed with their findings at times. However, this topic does not seem to have been handled on a professional level with the point about the cloud.

Just because the professional talked down to someone doesn't mean there needs to be a signal sent out. Let's be real. It's obvious that the attitude was over the line, but who's going to send that to a mod. Not on the level it was used.

It's also funny how my "opinion" doesn't count in your mind when I'm using visual observation. You'll listen to a so called "professional" who will find anyway to debunk what we have all seen on a video that has probably not been messed with. I'll take our visual observations over a "professional" opinion that talks of illusion. I guess it must have been swamp gas, whatever.

[edit on 19-1-2008 by mandalorianwarrior1]

[edit on 19-1-2008 by mandalorianwarrior1]


I don't know if you saw this yet but take a look at this picture, at the lower right there's an object that looks very similar to the object of this thread, the only difference is that it has an extra tentacle. I think the extra tentacle might be due to a slightly different shutter speed.



If you see my previous posts in this thread you'll see I was supporting the missile theory. I tried to find a missile that had flaps in similar configurations as the object but was unable to. I did not believe it was a rod because I hadn't seen a rod with a similar tentacle configuration before. But when another member posted the picture of the rod with the similar configuration I was convinced that the object is just a bug, apparently a wasp.

The wasp must have been close to the camera, flying in an upward angle at about 10mph. As for why it appears that it goes behind and in front of the cloud, it's probably just a trick of light because if it's a bug it certainly was no where near the cloud.



posted on Jan, 19 2008 @ 05:08 PM
link   
a wasp would be a bummer. I'm just having a much harder time making out the other object. The one that seems to go behind the cloud is much more easy to make a read on. The objects relation to the cloud actually is a big help in trying to figure out size and speed, if it's info we can trust and not an illusion. I'm also not sure that the two objects would have to be exact matches for them to be human or E.B.E. vehicles. If the second object can be proven as an insect it would certainly hurt the case for the object in the clouds. I'm not certain it would totally kill the case, but it may in fact do so. Good points you refocus on.

I would still tend to believe that the one object goes behind the clouds. It could be a trick played on us by our eyes, but sometimes you just have to go with what you can see. The odds that the light just happens to play a trick on this object only when it lines up with the cloud can not be great. I do understand that the cloud being in line with the object may be the very reason for this trick being played out. It's just that this is something that would be more likely visable to the eye and not a cam. The lines are so clear as to where the clouds are and how the object goes behind it that I'm having a very hard time thinking of this object as not actually going behind the cloud. There is no blur or anything of the sort. Just an object and you can not see it only when the cloud is in its way.

[edit on 19-1-2008 by mandalorianwarrior1]



posted on Jan, 19 2008 @ 06:01 PM
link   
I suppose I should not be surprised buy the responses to my post.

Jeff called me, and expressed his frustration with the situation on this thread, and folks, it's not like it's a first. Jeff has been VERY generous with his time, but after spending 20+ years evaluating big piles of bogus images, he's reached a saturation point. I came on here and saw the video, and sorry, it's nothing unusual. Jeff & I have both seen many, many versions of the same thing, we've already put these aside more than a few dozen times.

Some of you are sure that this thing moves behind the cloud. Nothing either of us will say will convince you otherwise. Some of you think it's a missile, the lack of a contrail be damned. Meanwhile, did anyone realize that the clip is in an episode of MonsterQuest that deals with...uhm... Rods? This thing is clearly, absolutely NOT going behind the cloud, regardless of what you believe...

www.opendb.com...

To the folks who claim that I'm putting myself above y'all - well, when it comes to image and video analysis, my credentials are extensive, regardless of whether or not you like that fact. An informed opinion is indeed more valuable than an uninformed statement of belief, and I realize that in our current politically-correct society, this is a very unpopular stance. Again, too bad, it's reality, people.

So go a. and tear this apart all you want. It's nothing of interest. Have fun.

dB

[edit on 19-1-2008 by davidbiedny]



posted on Jan, 19 2008 @ 07:29 PM
link   
nothing to do with the bs PC society we live in. I agree with you on our society being way over the end with the PC stuff. That's an easy way out to blame it on everyone being PC. Rude is rude, bottom line. Being rude is also a great tool when trying to debunk those crazy people who are so stupid to believe in UFO's that it should be obvious to everyone involved. Just cause you know, or think you know, more than someone else doesn't mean you should talk down to people and throw a tissy to those who are keeping hope alive based on what they can see in a video. That's one fancy cloud to be playing tricks like it does. I'm guessing it's swamp gas the way it gets so tricky. I great job has been done by WitnessFromAfar in this thread to show a still frame placing the object behind the cloud. You don't even need the still to see this, but it does help. This will just be another thread that is beat into the ground by people who say that there's nothing to see here, just move along, just move along. It's a shame that nothing can be proved one way or the other here, just that the object is behind the cloud.



posted on Jan, 19 2008 @ 07:35 PM
link   
I dont know if this is a rerun or not, but im watching monster quest and their talking about rods. Some great videos on there. ltr



posted on Jan, 19 2008 @ 07:43 PM
link   
mandalorianwarrior1, you might want to do some research before implying that I am someone who thinks that people who report seeing UFOs are crazy. The truth could not be further from the truth: I am an experiencer who has placed my career and reputation on the line, in the search for understanding of many aspects of the paranormal. And, like Jeff, I do all this without hiding behind the comfortable veil of anonymity. As I stated before, nothing would make me happier than to confirm that a picture of a UFO is genuine. Really. The only agenda I have is to separate the signal from the noise. This video clip, in my opinion, is noise, nothing weird, nothing interesting. If you feel differently about this, you are certainly within your rights to do so. I won't disturb this thread any further, I promise.

dB



posted on Jan, 19 2008 @ 08:24 PM
link   

Originally posted by mandalorianwarrior1
That's one fancy cloud to be playing tricks like it does. I'm guessing it's swamp gas the way it gets so tricky. I great job has been done by WitnessFromAfar in this thread to show a still frame placing the object behind the cloud. You don't even need the still to see this, but it does help.


So when you look at the link above provided by dave, it looks like the object is passing behind the cloud to you? In your opinion, does the object look like the other 'rods' that are on the same page?

Really, all 'tricky cloud swamp gas' sarcasm aside, does this object look ANY different than any of the other rods? This thread reminds me of the pictures of seagulls posted a while back that people would swear were advanced alien craft.



posted on Jan, 19 2008 @ 08:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by mandalorianwarrior1

It's also funny how my "opinion" doesn't count in your mind when I'm using visual observation. You'll listen to a so called "professional" who will find anyway to debunk what we have all seen on a video that has probably not been messed with. I'll take our visual observations over a "professional" opinion that talks of illusion. I guess it must have been swamp gas, whatever.



Why don't you quit rambling and back up your 'visual observation' with something...anything! Stay on topic and spend your time figuring out the make, model, origin, and destination of this missile. Who fired it? Why?

If that's your opinion, and I respect that, then back it up. Don't waste our time with your bashing. I have been nothing but respectful in this thread, I resent your post.

[edit on 19-1-2008 by hsur2112]



posted on Jan, 19 2008 @ 11:24 PM
link   
David, thanks if nothing else for your honesty. I can appreciate a candid opinion.

I'd like to apologize for MY tone in my last post. I'm sure you can understand that it's difficult to be dismissed, and it felt that way. I should not have responded with such veracity perhaps, I'm interested in learning.

I really want to be clear that I understand the 'Rods' are bugs thing. I get that. I'll also state that this thing certainly bears a strong resemblance to some of these Rods, and that I'm more than pleased that members here have posted Rods information for comparison purposes.

The thing that really got my attention here, was it seemed to go behind the clouds. Now I'm certain that we can all agree that if it DOES go behind the clouds, then it isn't a bug. That was the sum of my questioning here. I'll say as of now I'm still in the dark on the answer.

From the photo analysis I did, it seems to go behind the clouds.
From you and JRitzman's analysis, it doesn't, it's an image effect of some sort.

Believe it or not, I do give credence to an informed opinion, and the fact that you and JRitzman believe it doesn't go behind the clouds is enough for me to still be undecided on whether or not it does.

The only part of your last post I'd really like to discuss is quoted here:

Originally posted by davidbiedny
Some of you are sure that this thing moves behind the cloud. Nothing either of us will say will convince you otherwise.


That simply isn't true. I'll state again that I am very interested in understanding how this 'optical illusion' works.

Let me be clear, I'm not talking about the shutter speed effect that makes bugs look like 'Rods', I'm talking about the imaging effect that makes the 'thing' appear to go behind the clouds.

I'm not an image specialist, and to be perfectly honest I'm not very versed in cameras. I do understand optics though, and how light propagates. I've built a dobsonsian newtonian telescope, and operate a small meade I purchased as a hobby. I read a lot of science articles/books, and I have a basic education in physics.

I can understand how this optical illusion works, if someone could simply illustrate it for me? Really, I'm not trying to be demanding, I'm asking nicely, can someone please help me to understand?

Maybe a link to an external site that explains it?

We are taught here at ATS to seek evidence, and believe me when I tell you that if you take the time to teach us here in this thread how this imaging effect works, we WILL incorporate that knowledge into our analysis of images and video like this in the future.

But it's very hard for me to understand how it doesn't go behind the clouds if I don't understand the imaging effect I'm seeing.

Thank you for your time and any insight you may be able to offer.
-WFA

[EDIT]
I suppose I really should have looked at the link before responding LOL.
THANK YOU for explaining this! I didn't get from the text that the link you posted pertained to this issue, it seemed from the way it was referenced to simply be explaining the 'Rod' shutter speed phenomenon.

In fact, the optical illusion pertaining to the cloud is addressed, and I thank you for helping me to understand it.

For clarity for the average joe, I'll post the relevant data here...
From the source:
"To test this theory, I made this video of a small wad of black electrical tape being dropped about 3 feet in front of a camcorder pointed at some clouds. As expected, compositing all the fields produces a continuous streak, but note that the blur is "washed out" where it passes in front of clouds, especially in front of the brightest cloud. You can still see it (and indeed, you can also see a faint streak on the cloud in the Albany video, enlarged above), but basically, that little wad of tape just isn't doing a very good job of blocking the camera's view of the cloud in the frames were it passes in front of one. Although the streak is still visible in these video captures, when this video is viewed in slow motion (like the Albany video), there is a fairly strong illusion that the "rod" flies behind the brightest cloud."

Picture of 'test':


Source:
www.opendb.com...

I'll certainly remember this technique in the future, when analyzing video.
[END EDIT]

2nd edit to make the picture a pic and not a link



[edit on 19-1-2008 by WitnessFromAfar]

[edit on 19-1-2008 by WitnessFromAfar]



posted on Jan, 20 2008 @ 12:01 AM
link   
I should have added in that last post that the 'streak' effect is created using composite images. For fair comparison, here is the 'rod' in question, with this same technique applied, from David's sourced site:



posted on Jan, 20 2008 @ 12:17 AM
link   
It looks like a bug to me.

When I first watched it (when this thread was new), I thought it was interesting that the "missile" appeared to go behind the clouds.

But then I saw the photos of the bugs, and, yeah--it looks like a bug.

I'm figuring that the fact that it appears to go behind the clouds is some sort of illusion caused by the medium on which it was recorded.

F



posted on Jan, 20 2008 @ 12:26 AM
link   

Originally posted by Fuggle
I'm figuring that the fact that it appears to go behind the clouds is some sort of illusion caused by the medium on which it was recorded.


Sort of. The way it's explained at the external link is that the object is so small, and travelling so fast, that the camera doesn't film it blocking light from the cloud, therefore giving the illusion that it passes behind the cloud.

From the source:
"But I do believe that this is just an illusion caused by assuming that the "rod" is a solid object when in fact it's mostly transparent, because it's really a motion blur. Seeing the cloud through the "rod" makes it look as if the "rod" passed behind a semi-transparent cloud. But consider what happens if a bug is flying about 10 times its own length during the 1/60 second exposure time. As the bug flies in front of the cloud, it would be blocking any given small section of the cloud for only about 10% of the exposure time. That is, the camera is "seeing" that piece of the cloud for 90% of the exposure time, and the bug for the other 10%, which is to say that the "rod" would be 90% transparent. (Actually, refraction around a small roundish bug would increase the amount of cloud-reflected light reaching the camera, so the streak would appear to be even more that 90% transparent.)"



posted on Jan, 20 2008 @ 01:38 AM
link   

Originally posted by Shades1035

Originally posted by Crakeur
reply to post by jritzmann
 


Jeff, since you are the expert on these things, I'll accept that explanation as the most probable cause and the most likely explanation. Case closed on the object




How can you say case closed just because some guy thinks its an insect? The reporter said the object went over the clouds, guess you must have missed that part?


The reporter didn't even see it until he looked at the video, so he can't say definitively it went over the clouds. He has no additional insight in the matter than we have. His only evidence is the same video we are looking at here.

[edit on 1/20/2008 by Soylent Green Is People]



posted on Jan, 20 2008 @ 11:53 AM
link   
reply to post by Soylent Green Is People
 


I would agree with you, and I would further state that he was most likely fooled by the same visual data that Simon Says and I were looking at.
It is precisely this sort of Data, that seems to reveal one thing but in fact reveals another, that ATS Analysis is so very vital.

I'm glad I now understand the process by which this illusion occurs.
Even so, I think it's completely reasonable that upon investigation of the images in still frame that people would come to the conclusion that the object goes behind the clouds.

This illusion being explained assigns significant value to this thread, IMO.
I hope everybody reads it, and understands the actual method involved.
I also think that on a small scale, congratulations are in order. Members that thought the object passed behind the clouds kept investigating until we got a satisfactory answer explaining the imaging effect we were observing.

We, in effect, Denied Our Own Ignorance, and that feels pretty good.
Being informed of the technique now, we are empowered with the knowledge of it's function, and can impart this knowledge on to others when faced with similar imaging effects in the future.



posted on Jan, 20 2008 @ 12:14 PM
link   


Why don't you quit rambling and back up your 'visual observation' with something...anything! Stay on topic and spend your time figuring out the make, model, origin, and destination of this missile. Who fired it? Why?

If that's your opinion, and I respect that, then back it up. Don't waste our time with your bashing. I have been nothing but respectful in this thread, I resent your post.

[edit on 19-1-2008 by hsur2112]

You say I'm rambling? You can resent my post all you want. It's no bother to me because you have not added anything of true value to this thread. I'd say you've added plenty of rambling on your own. You make a model of a missile and I'll be right by your side to help. A common debunker tool, ask someone to prove something with a test that an average person can't run. I've been on topic. There was plenty that almost got the topic off of target before. It's going off of target to say this object didn't go behind the cloud. I'll wait for you to get back on topic and stop wasting our time.

Also, just because this object looks like a bug doesn't mean it is also a bug. That other object may not even be a bug for all we know. The only concrete fact is that to everyone it looks as if the original object of discussion is going behind the cloud. Thanks and sorry to all of those who have put their time and thought into this topic. It's rather weak for someone to quit on such an important topic because another ruffled their feathers a bit on an internet message board. Next time I'll just fall in line and buy into the next Project MOGUL theory since it's the easy way out even if an illusion theory can't be proven. The pitty votes flow in with comments of sorrow and support against the bad guy who sees an object going behind clouds.



[edit on 20-1-2008 by Mandalorianwarrior]



new topics

top topics



 
18
<< 4  5  6    8  9 >>

log in

join