It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
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.
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.
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.
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!
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.