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.

 

New TYPE of UFO! Very real!

page: 3
3
<< 1  2   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 1 2008 @ 09:42 PM
link   
I am really not impressed by this. It shows no detail, nothing around for scale. What exactly are we supposed to see hear? The light changing could be mostly the camera reacting to the auto focus. Nothing special.




posted on Feb, 1 2008 @ 11:02 PM
link   
I see this quite differently.

First, the shot did not appear to be out of focus, when there was little zoom and it did seem out of focus there was little detail at all.

Next, the streaks of light radiating in a random fashion from the center is not typical of the atmospheric distortion associated with stars. Even the images provided by the moderator did not explain this anomaly that does resemble the standard plasma toys found in stores. It did have that general appearance especially with the dark center, however I believe that is not enough to completely discount this as a star. I am not saying that atmospheric distortion is not playing into this either, if it is in the atmosphere then it SHOULD have some distortion, and the more energy it outputs, the greater the natural distortion of the atmosphere.

Also, towards the end of the video the sighted object appeared to shift from a 3D image to a 2D image almost as though it was shifting dimensions. I would say that this is a hint that it could be some kind of effect that creates a dimensional shift, altering the location of the object whilst still visible. When moving towards higher dimensions (such as the 4th or 8th dimension), an object would be harder to see, where as if an object moves towards lower dimensions it would become rendered in the only dimensions left to view it in (i.e. 2 dimensions or flat).

Really, why does this have to be a planet or star right off the bat? I don't know what this is, nor am I pretending to. However, it requires little effort to discount something immediately when there can be further discussion. The moderator made some very good points and provided some very good photographic samples illustrating his reasoning, but I think there is still something more to this than JUST atmospheric distortion of a far away object (such as a star).

Perhaps ball lightning could produce that similar effect on its surface, and it has been believed that ball lightning could even move through glass unimpeded, which could also account for what I am believing to be dimensional shifting of this light. It can also possibly occur with minimal cloud cover. This is another option. Why just discount something as the simplest answer when it isn't necessary?

Thinking of ball lightning, how do we know what that really is either, or that every object that makes regular intervals in the night sky is really what people believe them to be? What if there are fundamental flaws in our understanding ranging from our own planet, to the stars themselves, to gravity, to perhaps even mathematics?

Do you think that it could be that perhaps all the disinfo out there is really for those who created its protection. I mean, what if all that we know is so wrong that we just look completely stupid on a fundamental level to those people not from Earth, and the only reason our governments are helping to keep it that way is so the people won't rise up en masse because we are being kept in the stone age compared to what is out there?

People are so proud of science, and nowadays I am not so sure that there is much to be proud of. Sure I use the scientific method in every aspect of my life, but beyond that I really think that most people out here live in a dream world of technology when it could ALL be false, even though it can be confirmed.

What if what we attribute to red shift is actually something else entirely? What if Jupiter really isn't made of gas? What if stars are not thermonuclear reactions at all, but just varying size gates into the Zero Point Energy field? People are so quick to claim an oddity is a planet or a star, when you can't say for 100% certainty what they are and how they work.

Science is based on ASSUMPTIONS, if something works repeatedly then it must be true until it is countered, but what if it is false and you never receive that contradictory information? Then you never find out and you know as much about the unknown as you do about the known, nothing.

[edit

[edit on 2-2-2008 by GideonHM]



posted on Feb, 2 2008 @ 11:34 AM
link   
reply to post by GideonHM
 


I will agree with you on more points then not I think. However I noticed in your post pre-edit, you mentioned something to the effect of "Why do we discount complicated theories when the easiest one is available". Well I think it is because in this case, it is easily explained, and there is no reason for something complicated. I believe 100% that there are UFO's, but I don't think this is even close to compelling evidence that thats what this is.

My knowledge of telescopes is pretty basic, as I just bought a really cheap one last summer and am not well versed yet. My knowledge of filters and magnifiers are 0. However I thought it was pretty clear that this is not a flying object even.



posted on Feb, 2 2008 @ 12:42 PM
link   
Sorry, I'm just going to laugh at all the "Venus" explanations and be on my way.

People will say anything to avoid questioning a UFO video. Yeah. I suppose VENUS just doubled in size one night and decided to start reflecting twice the amount of light.

Good lord.

Nice vid, thanks for sharing.



posted on Feb, 2 2008 @ 02:39 PM
link   

Originally posted by sputniksteve
reply to post by GideonHM
 


I will agree with you on more points then not I think. However I noticed in your post pre-edit, you mentioned something to the effect of "Why do we discount complicated theories when the easiest one is available". Well I think it is because in this case, it is easily explained, and there is no reason for something complicated. I believe 100% that there are UFO's, but I don't think this is even close to compelling evidence that thats what this is.

Fair enough.

Now, really my point isn't about discounting the more complicated theories in light of simpler ones, rather it is about discounting either when examining the more complex ones MAY shed more light on the issue at hand, even though the simpler ones could be the answer. If that light is Venus or a star, looking at a more complex theory won't change that fact. What if it isn't the simple answer, but it happens to share many qualities with those simple solutions, such as atmospheric distortion?

One thing that is agreed upon is that it is an energy source of some sort. Either reflected light or projected energy/light. My only real problem with the planet/star theory is that the 'energy streaks' emanating from the 'core' are not really indicative of either, but could be a plasma source (like ball lightning) or could even be cgi. Both of those options are also simple explanations, but they were not even mentioned AND they explain the 'energy streaks', which the planet/star explanations do not.

I really wish it was some sort of ship or evidence of EBEs, but that is stretching things far beyond what I feel this footage is capable of explaining. Oversimplification is what I am stating is the issue here, and by just taking a few extra steps to address all the properties evidenced in the simplest explanation is far better than just saying it is a planet/star and being done with it. Yet, including the planet/star explanation is important to keeping a well balanced and productive conversation going, as long as people can listen long enough to engage in intelligent discourse, which stating "IT'S A STAR!" does not provide.



posted on Feb, 2 2008 @ 03:26 PM
link   
reply to post by GideonHM
 


Well Said Gideon. I understand better what you are saying now. I won't make any claim as to what I think this is. I wouldn't know if it was Venus or not. I believe your interpretation seems to make a lot more sense then just saying "it's Venus". Be both agree on what we don't think it is though, and that is the Crux of the matter I think. Stary star for you!



posted on Feb, 3 2008 @ 04:25 AM
link   
This thing looks like its shimmering under water! I have never seen any star shine or glint like that plus its to big even for Venus!… its not an asteroid or a meteorite, for some reason it looked like a "black hole" or an "opened gate" of some sort, that’s just me though… it has a round core that seems to spin around its self.



posted on Feb, 3 2008 @ 11:06 AM
link   

Originally posted by codex code
This thing looks like its shimmering under water! I have never seen any star shine or glint like that plus its to big even for Venus!… its not an asteroid or a meteorite, for some reason it looked like a "black hole" or an "opened gate" of some sort, that’s just me though… it has a round core that seems to spin around its self.


Remember, water is an atmosphere, and atmospheric distortion could be accounting for the core of the light. To be honest, I never even thought of it as a gate, but until it went 2D it seemed too spherical to be an access point. However, being that I am still sticking by my interpretation that it seemed to be shifting dimensions going from 3D to 2D, your perception does seem to make sense.

If it was a gate then the question would be what would go through it? I firmly believe that many ships possessed by EBEs are many, many square miles wide and the 'sports model' size ships are the only thing that could utilize such a 'small' portal, if that is what it is. Some may say, then where where the ships? Well I also believe that tachyon clouds are typically emitted so as to prevent such observations, but if that is the case then why let the gate/portal/whatever it is show?

Or it could be an organism. Take the red spot on Jupiter for instance. It is always a possibility that a gigantic sand storm that lasts for centuries, then produces a white version of it self, which then eventually turns red and begins to grow, then competes with the original for resources, COULD be some kind of atmospheric life form that has not truly been understood all this time. Who knows until we know, just like with this, there is always the chance that something ended up entering our atmosphere from a different dimension or existence, was recorded on camera, and it either left or died.

I personally take it as an exercise in fun to wrap my mind around these concepts, even if they are complex and not necessarily reasonable, but who cares? I think people are far more concerned with saying what something is or is not than with just having fun with these things. I think that would be so cool if that was an energy entity! I wonder how it would feed, or if it just absorbs energy, then how does its form maintain cohesion? Perhaps those energy streaks were actually feeding tendrils? I don't know, but it is damn cool to think about and imagine possibilities in an infinite universe!! Imagination will always take one farther than cold, hard facts, it may take a lot longer to get to the bottom of things, but exploration and bizarre hypotheses are a lot, lot more fun! WHEEEE!



posted on Feb, 3 2008 @ 08:18 PM
link   
reply to post by freighttrain
 



.._______
./--------\
|||||||||||
.\_______/

It is hard to draw a saucer like this, however; this will suffice for the conversation's sake. If the center section being the part with the lights, it is easy to see where when viewed from the angle the video is shot from, that it would appear hollow. This is an illusion due to the three dimensional aspect of the saucer. With the lights in the center section (represented by |||||) as the saucer is viewed from the bottom (or top) the center, being unlit, would appear darker and resemble a passage into space, or be mis-understood as a total lack of material. This is however just an illusion and the object definitely has a center. This is what I would suggest is the way a saucer functions. In order to deal with the g forces that are inherent with traveling at super speeds, there would have to be some sort of artificial gravity produced in order to protect whatever life forms are present from being crushed or becoming an integral part of a bulkhead. The center section in my opinion generates artificial gravity by spinning thus producing centrifugal force which is counteractive to the g force. That is why there always seems to be a lit section in the center on all near object photographs taken from a side perspective. Furthermore; by placing copper or some other super conductor in the center section and plate magnets in the outer ring, electromagnetic energy can be produced. This if used in theory could product amounts of thrust that are incomprehensible with our current technology. If you used the electromagnetic energy produced, which would be massive considering the rate of spin that would be required to counteract super speeds which ufo's are said to travel at, to slingshot off of the planet's or other bodies magnetic field, the amount of thrust you could obtain would be nothing short of imposible to imagine. Sorry that is a little off subject.

Darryl

[edit on 3-2-2008 by DarrylGalasso]

[edit on 3-2-2008 by DarrylGalasso]

[edit on 3-2-2008 by DarrylGalasso]

[edit on 3-2-2008 by DarrylGalasso] trying to make the drawing work

[edit on 3-2-2008 by DarrylGalasso]



posted on Feb, 3 2008 @ 08:21 PM
link   
reply to post by freighttrain
 

Very intriguing indeed although i have seen other pictures of orbs before but they where blues and looked like they had sort of like a maze pattern inside them.



posted on Feb, 4 2008 @ 07:20 AM
link   
That is Planet Venus full of swamp gas reflçecting the lights of a weather balloon!

rsrsrsrssrsr!



posted on Feb, 4 2008 @ 11:50 AM
link   
We are not who we think we are, and the truth of our history has been twisted and perverted by the jaded minds of religious leaders since ancient times. The time is fast approaching when the real truth will be revealed to mankind in crystal clear terms. Do not allow yourself to think that life as you now know it, is all there is. Do not listen to contemporary clergy explainantions, or the current wave of professional debunkers.
I urge you to visit these sites, and then listen and read the information presented by a group of dedicated individuals who have been working to sift through fragments of nearly lost information, that will show you, who you are.
Stop being so resistant towards learning anything new and not about today's Pop-Culture.
If you are interested in becoming more enlightened, then visit these;

www.xfacts.com or www.mars-earth.com


navigate around, and look with opened eyes.

Safe voyage, and keep your eyes on the waters.

UFOBH



posted on Feb, 4 2008 @ 05:53 PM
link   
Great to hear so many responses, this is definitely one of the better clips I have come across. I also speak the language of what the cameraman is speaking and can't help but to believe what it is they're saying. They have seen this object few times, it appears for hours on, then disappear instantly from what they were saying. They were amazed by it's color (keep in mind video clip is not the same as what they saw) and kept on referring to it as a see through multicolors glow that reminds them of an umbrella.

From my own research the best conclusion I came up with is that this is some type of ET RV (remote vehicle) of a type. The clip is very clear, you can see this by how clear the outline of the inner circle is when zoomed. It seems like an Orb of a type with a very high glow of energy (shield) of a type.



posted on Feb, 6 2008 @ 11:09 PM
link   
This one, for a change, is better than most of those usual unrecognizable streaks and points of lights that one often gets to see.

Here’s a still from the vid. Resembles those pulsating objects in the famous ‘Tether Incident’ except that the ‘notch’ is missing in this one.


Frame grab from Disclose TV

I haven't a clue. But it does seem intriguing!

Cheers!



posted on Feb, 7 2008 @ 05:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by mikesingh
This one, for a change, is better than most of those usual unrecognizable streaks and points of lights that one often gets to see.

Here’s a still from the vid. Resembles those pulsating objects in the famous ‘Tether Incident’ except that the ‘notch’ is missing in this one.


Frame grab from Disclose TV

I haven't a clue. But it does seem intriguing!

Cheers!





Good call on the image there, the part that seems very interesting is the black spots in and around the edge. It shows that whatever it is has a bit of transparency. Also the colors of the glow seems like a very unique color. I'm an artist and work with colors all day long, that whitish blue glow is very unique to me... seems somewhat peaceful!



posted on Feb, 7 2008 @ 06:29 PM
link   
Without any other objects in the video such as buildings or trees, I seriously believe this is a fake. As far as I can tell someone made a video of a flashlight in a dark room and is calling this a UFO. No swamp gas or weather balloons here.

Thanks for bringing this to our attention.



posted on Feb, 7 2008 @ 08:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by Sanity Lost
Without any other objects in the video such as buildings or trees, I seriously believe this is a fake. As far as I can tell someone made a video of a flashlight in a dark room and is calling this a UFO. No swamp gas or weather balloons here.

Thanks for bringing this to our attention.


Not having trees or buildings certainly makes it more difficult to authenticate any piece of evidence. That is not proof positive of a hoax or falsification either. Why not just say you don't know? YOU DON'T KNOW. So, why believe that it is fake? I don't know what it is, but at least I am allowing for options in my mind.

Also, saying "Thanks for bringing this to our attention" is quite rude and many have already shown interest in this evidence, no matter what it is or is not, and that statement seems like you are trying to say that the op is wasting all of our time, and that we agree with your assumption. I for one do not, and I would appreciate it if you are going to make assumptions, you leave everyone else out of your perspective.



posted on Feb, 7 2008 @ 11:27 PM
link   
reply to post by GideonHM
 


“Why not just say you don't know? YOU DON'T KNOW.” –

I also allow for options before making any actions or statements. My belief that the video is fake is the option I have chosen based on the lack of any hard evidence to prove the claim to be otherwise.

Telling the readers here that I was “quite rude” when I wrote, "Thanks for bringing this to our attention" is out of place here at ATS. I was merely thanking the OP for bringing this video to ATS to be discussed in a civilized manner. Perhaps with your lack of experience posting at ATS you took this for something it was not.

When posting replies to threads please refer at least to the following.

1f.) Relevant Content
2) Behavior

Both found at the link below.

Terms and Conditions



new topics

top topics



 
3
<< 1  2   >>

log in

join