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: 8
18
<< 5  6  7    9 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 20 2008 @ 12:31 PM
link   
reply to post by Mandalorianwarrior
 


MandalorianWarrior,
First and foremost, I appreciate your defense of my position while I was absent from the thread yesterday. Our tactics differ, but essentially I was of the same opinion, that the object did pass behind the clouds.

After examining the process that creates this illusion, I now believe that the object does not pass behind the clouds. The reasons why can be found in these posts:
www.abovetopsecret.com...
www.abovetopsecret.com...
and here:
www.abovetopsecret.com...

If you'd like help understanding this phenomenon after reading those posts carefully, I'll certainly be glad to assist you. This effect isn't intuitive (at least it wasn't for me) but it's consistent with the way that the camera seems to function.

I hope that helps. Believe me, I was frustrated too, before I understood the imaging effect.




posted on Jan, 20 2008 @ 01:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by Mandalorianwarrior

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.



I am just curious Mandalorianwarrior, what is your take then on the fantastic information that David and Jeff provided and that WitnessFromAfar so eloquently worded?

And thank you Witness, you are very well spoken.



posted on Jan, 20 2008 @ 01:20 PM
link   
That monster quest episode was so funny when they caught a "rod" on a super high speed camera and slowed it down to reveal a little ordinary moth putting along lol.

That's a bug. Also, it didn't go through the clouds, that video is such poor quality it may have looked like it but no.



posted on Jan, 20 2008 @ 01:20 PM
link   
It DOES look like a "rod" to me. "Rods" membranes flutter as they fly, don't they? So if this one was spinning in the usual "rod" fashion, the membranes would look taut, as they do in this footage.

Has Jose Escamilla weighed in on this?



posted on Jan, 20 2008 @ 01:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by WitnessFromAfar

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


I think what a lot of people have to keep in mind is that video is not exposure film. It's not a developing process, nor emulsion in the sense that we think of for film.

I've heard people say "an image is an image is an image", nothing is further from the truth.

It's a totally (by in large) different set of reactions you can get.

Look at the hoopla over the Walters Polaroids back in the 80's. People had no idea old peel-apart Polaroid film could essentially overprint light components in a double exposure, with darks in the second, or background plate.

[edit on 20-1-2008 by jritzmann]



posted on Jan, 20 2008 @ 01:25 PM
link   
Sometimes illusions happen, but most often times they do not. The odds would be in favor of this illusion not having happened. Maybe it did this time. They stated how this illusion can take place. That does not mean that it will always take place during every filming. Especially when the lines are so perfect where the cloud is blocking every bit of the object as it would happen to be behind the cloud. This illusion is an option, but not a must. Either way, it is probably safe to say that we will not be able to get any further with this topic. There has been excellent work done here and we may have reached a dead end.

Even if this was an object that went behind a cloud I'm not sure how we could ever figure out what it was. I'm sorry for being so hot headed to those who I lashed out at. I just had not gotten back into posting until now. Most of the stories that surfice in here are bunk. I just don't see how this one can be written off so easily as some of the others have been, and this story due to an illusion caught on/or created by how the image was caught.

It's unfortunate that what got me back into posting was an anger building up towards everything being scoffed at by the general media and some posters on this site. I do understand that this may not have been the case in this thread, but let us remember that a certain attitude was delivered to a poster who was defending that this object went behind the clouds. That helped to set me off because I have seen believers attacked in this way many times before. I got hot headed and then defensive. I need to remember that a site like this is our only true hope for getting to the bottom of many of these stories. Now that my initial burst has been put forth I'm hoping to debate with a cooler head.

No prob Witness, my tactics are usually more level headed like yours have been.

[edit on 20-1-2008 by Mandalorianwarrior]



posted on Jan, 20 2008 @ 01:48 PM
link   

Originally posted by CynCritter

Has Jose Escamilla weighed in on this?


Jose Escamillia has been banned from ATS. Mods, please corrrect me if I'm wrong.



posted on Jan, 20 2008 @ 03:08 PM
link   
reply to post by jritzmann
 


JRitzman, thank you for returning to this thread to confirm that I've grasped the situation correctly. You are right, that people freak out when they see something they can't explain.

Thank you also for your additional comparison data. I believe that (even though we were both upset) you and I worked together in this thread (with many others) to expose the imaging effect here. I hope that we can continue to do so in the future.

I'll promise now to never stop learning, and I'm very glad to have members like you and David who are able to teach.

*

Mandalorianwarrior, that was very big of you to say. Thank you for adding that. And welcome back to ATS! I hope that you will continue to use direct observation as analysis, and everyone is entitled to their opinions. Thanks also for helping us all to settle this thread down. I think everyone was frustrated, and it's really hard to have a conversation when everyone is upset (myself included).

I'm so happy this thread has gotten back to examining and debating the evidence. I've had a big lump in my stomach for a few days now, LOL hoping it would be so.

*

hsur, you are most welcome, and thank you for the kind words.



posted on Jan, 20 2008 @ 03:33 PM
link   
Well, now that I've chosen the "ignore" button for Mandalorianwarrior, I'm a happier person. But that said, the fact that he never backed away from his insinuation that I am some sort of anti-UFO debunker, makes me realize that ATS is probably not the kind of place I should be frequenting. I'll continue in my research work with Jeff, but will make sure to stop and hesitate before posting on here again. Jeff, you are right - perhaps it's time to move on.

dB



posted on Jan, 20 2008 @ 03:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by Mandalorianwarrior
I got hot headed and then defensive. I need to remember that a site like this is our only true hope for getting to the bottom of many of these stories.


I'm probably guilty of getting defensive as well. We definitely agree that getting to the bottom the these stories is what this site is about, as long as respect for the opinions of others is not lost along the way.

I am not a technical person and rely heavily on the technical knowledge of others.

This thread has definitely made staying inside and out of the sub-zero windchill worth it.




posted on Jan, 20 2008 @ 03:43 PM
link   
reply to post by davidbiedny
 


Well, I'm sorry you couldn't read his/her last reply, here is the relevent portion:

"I'm sorry for being so hot headed to those who I lashed out at." -Mandalorianwarrior

Not trying to cause trouble, just wanted you to know that the tone of this thread has returned to rationality.

Since you're back too, I'll add my thanks David for the link you posted. I found the explanation I was looking for there, and you can be assured I will quote that source on your/jritzman's behalf when relevant in the future.



posted on Jan, 20 2008 @ 05:05 PM
link   
I've formally requested that my account on ATS be terminated. This is my last post.

Take care, all, and may you find the answers you're looking for.

dB



posted on Jan, 20 2008 @ 05:16 PM
link   
That's a shame David, I'm sorry to hear that.
Best of luck to you as well.

(Sorry for the one line post, but I thought the sentiment valid enough to express)



posted on Jan, 20 2008 @ 05:28 PM
link   
reply to post by davidbiedny
 


Sorry to here that too. I need all the technical help I can get with this topic. This is probably not going to be the last
"bug aka: rod/missile/ufo" thread.....I'll be around for the next one! Anyone care to join me...


Have a great weekend all!

[edit on 20-1-2008 by hsur2112]



posted on Jan, 20 2008 @ 05:59 PM
link   
Please get and stay on topic.

Topic is the video... not other members and who's been banned or leaving ATS.

Thanks



posted on Jan, 21 2008 @ 04:30 AM
link   

Originally posted by paul76

Originally posted by jritzmann
Looks like the "rod" phenomena, realized some time ago to be flying insects close to the camera, blurred by shutter speeds elongating their appearance, and staggering their wings.


That's fair enough but what about the fact that the object passes through the clouds?

You have clouds and a plane as a point of reference for size. This means the object is further away than the plane and thus has to be of a comparable or larger size, depending on how high up it is. So it'd definitely not:

1. An insect of the "rod" phenomenon
2. A camera artifact of the "rod" phenomenon.
3. A missile (unless it's a damned big one!).
4. A plane (unless it's a new ultra fast one).

regards,



posted on Jan, 21 2008 @ 06:29 AM
link   

Originally posted by malcrYou have clouds and a plane as a point of reference for size. This means the object is further away than the plane


please tell me how you determined that it is further away than the plane ?



posted on Jan, 21 2008 @ 01:51 PM
link   
A girl at my school in 1971 was
frightened of CIA men coming
along to her family's house,
mainly the father of the house
had had a close encounter of the
fourth kind in 1955 in Nigeria, but
whilst the family had fled to Edinburgh
in Scotland, they had been regularly
interviewed by CIA men asking, always
checking as to whether something further
had happened, whether aliens had
visited the family yet again....so I've
always read these announcements
that "We consider ufos to be of no
defence significance" very
warily....there was no doubt
that the whole family were terrified
of the CIA's extraordinarily persistent
behaviour, and were worried that
they were going to be killed in
an 'accident....a crashed car or
something'....they sounded just
like Princess Di did before her assassination
the whole thing would be quite a long story to tell......

......getting to the nitty gritty is
preferable......what the "ufologists"
just don't get is how violent the western
security services are about the
extra-terrestrial societies boosting
the ideological status of
left-wing ideology, especially
the horizontality tendency.....left-of-left
super-democratisation....anti-individualistic
ultra-egalitarian social formations on other planets....the CIA/NSA/BritishMI5/militaryindustrial
caucus is vicious in its social
pyramidalism/dothisdothat/whiplash
social structure....however because
the greys are pyramidal, the CIA
are preparing society for the aliens
that suit capitalist drives......that is it.
Steven Greer will never suss that or believe it.



posted on Jan, 21 2008 @ 01:55 PM
link   
reply to post by SimonSays
 


The object might be as large around as the plane that just took off.

The shrouding in dark blue as the sky background is a problem.

If the wings are not wings at all but columns of light or UV radiation
(that just happens to show up on film as light) from plasma motors
then we are playing in a ballgame we know nothing about.



posted on Jan, 21 2008 @ 09:54 PM
link   
To all members participating in this thread...

I sent the following letter today from one of my private email accounts. I thought you all should know. I will, of course, post follow up, should I get any word back from either source. I sent the email to Anne Meyer from KSNW, the reporter for the NBC Video, and Fox News' main comment email.

To: yourcomments@foxnews.com, ameyer@ksn.com
Subject: The Strange UFO Photographed by a Fox News Photographer

Hello,

I'm an active member at a message board that does analysis on video such as the one in Anne Meyer's story. The story in question can be found online here:
video.wnbc.com...

There is a youtube version here:
youtube.com...

Many members have come to the conclusion that this 'UFO' is merely a bug, that is distorted due to its proximity to the camera, and the speed at which it's travelling.

We understand the theory would be disproven, should the object actually pass behind the clouds.

We do not feel the object travels behind the clouds, we believe the effect is an illusion, also based upon the bug's size and speed, in comparison with the cloud behind it.

Testing of this theory, and an in-depth explanation of the imaging effect can be found here:
www.opendb.com...

We would appreciate your comments on the probability that this UFO could be explained by this imaging effect. If you come to the same conclusions after viewing the tests and explanation, perhaps a short 'correction' segment would be warranted within your broadcast time.

I will of course, be reporting your reply in the public forum online message board, where this case was analyzed. That particular thread can be found here:
www.abovetopsecret.com...

If you would like to report your answers for yourself at this forum, it is a free site, and members there would appreciate direct feedback. I will be more than willing to convey your conclusions, should you choose.

Thank you very much for your time,


-WitnessFromAfar (pseudonym from above mentioned message board)


Not that this means anything, but I got an autofeedback reply from Fox:

Dear FNC Viewer,

As you can imagine, we receive thousands of messages a day from our viewers, and while we appreciate you taking the time to provide feedback, we cannot respond to every question or comment directly. Please know that your e-mails are read and your comments are taken into consideration and thank you for watching FNC!

Thank you,
FOX News Channel


[edit on 21-1-2008 by WitnessFromAfar]



new topics

top topics



 
18
<< 5  6  7    9 >>

log in

join