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? "Mothership" footage.

page: 1
8
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 14 2008 @ 02:17 PM
link   
Did a little search,and couldn't find this one,seems to be a new one. The poster on youtube claims to have been given this at a ufo conference. But I'll leave that one up to your imagination. He also invites video specialists to examine the videos.

anyway,here's a bit of it (1:34)
uk.youtube.com...

and here's the full 8:34
uk.youtube.com...

it's shakey,and it looks like it's in slo mo,I'd have thought that something like that would be a quick bish bash bosh job. But hey,whaddoIknow?

sorry if it's a repost.


[edit on 14/4/2008 by Acidtastic]




posted on Apr, 14 2008 @ 02:26 PM
link   
Ok. how bout the camera focus? Seems to me he's not really looking at the objects, seems to be off angle..which could mean...(drumroll)...it's a CGI.

But hey, what do I know?



posted on Apr, 14 2008 @ 04:02 PM
link   
Great post. I havent seen this before. The unusual nature of the objects in the film makes up for the shakyness of the camera work. Great find. I think this is definately worth taking a closer look. Flagged and starred.




posted on Apr, 14 2008 @ 04:33 PM
link   
Now that is strange.

My first thought was airship/dirigble/blimp/whatever they're called these day, but when other appeared out of nowhere...

As I say, very stange indeed and it does not look like your usual CGI stuff does it?

flagged and starred from me to see what the techies have to say on in it.

Thanks for sharing this. I;'ve not seen it before.



posted on Apr, 14 2008 @ 05:00 PM
link   
is it really too much to ask for people to hold a camera still? it's very easy.. and you would think with something like this, they would have tried better..

I have a feeling this is another one of those disinfo posts... those things are not other worldly craft.. they are just balloons/blimps.. or some sort of other man made object.

thumbs down in my opinion



posted on Apr, 14 2008 @ 08:50 PM
link   
Why is it that each time we see good daylight footage there are trees, houses and other things in the way?

Are these people taking videos so disabled (both in mind and body) not to be able to move to a clearing and get a better shot? And I am not buying that excuse of "It might disappear the next moment". There's plenty of moments to videotape things if you focus (your mind) to the task.

For example in the first linked video, there's a house in-between the sky and the observer, then there branches of trees, suspended cables from poles etc. Why not just go behind the house and take a clear shot, or even better, climb on the roof or a tree top, telephone pole, balcony, car, anything that offers higher elevation than your are on now - it's just common sense...



posted on Apr, 14 2008 @ 08:57 PM
link   
reply to post by amigo
 



I think the general consensus you'l find is that most investigators WANT the trees and houses in there to keep a point of reference and relations to size and speed.
Yes, it kinda bites that it screws up footage, but, it's needed, IMO.

Cuhail



posted on Apr, 14 2008 @ 08:58 PM
link   
At 43/46 seconds did that third bird fling over the house go behind the lower
object?

If it were behind , thats one small vessel or one heck of a large bird.

edit first clip

edit 2 if these are from the same movie then where are the birds in the second one?

[edit on 4/14/2008 by EvilBat]

[edit on 4/14/2008 by EvilBat]



posted on Apr, 14 2008 @ 09:02 PM
link   
I believe there's plenty of other ways to provide a reference for some footage, such as zooming all the way out, putting a hand in-front of you, pointing left or right of the subject towards other objects, etc. A skilled investigator will not need a ruler in the sky to decide how far, large or fast is something



posted on Apr, 14 2008 @ 09:05 PM
link   
its fake, even a n00b would know those vids are fake. just look at the center of the first video..



posted on Apr, 14 2008 @ 09:06 PM
link   
about my second edit about the birds in the second video
I see them just really hard to see

so I still think what I said still just found the birds in the second video



posted on Apr, 14 2008 @ 09:13 PM
link   
No sound or the camera man saying anything
If I caught that on video I would definitely keep the camera on it at all times. I would not go above them and then back down. I would shout out to the world to what I am seeing whether I sound crazy or keep my cool about it. O still don't know much about CGI so you CGI specialist will have to deal with that. Just seems like if this was it then I would let you know that I thought this was it. I know everyone is different, but would you leave your voice out of it? In my opinion. " NO "



posted on Apr, 14 2008 @ 09:21 PM
link   
Maybe its just me but ....
The only time I saw real change in position was when the camera moved slightly off the object and then back on.



posted on Apr, 14 2008 @ 09:58 PM
link   
That bites I just lost a post again ...

long post short

After watching the part I'm speaking of with the birds

I'm thinking that it was behind unless if were in front " and being blinded out by light "

It's only gone for a split second.

After watching the second video I'd have to say that the birds are to pixelated to really see them.



posted on Apr, 15 2008 @ 02:06 AM
link   

Originally posted by Solarskye
No sound or the camera man saying anything
If I caught that on video I would definitely keep the camera on it at all times. I would not go above them and then back down. I would shout out to the world to what I am seeing whether I sound crazy or keep my cool about it. O still don't know much about CGI so you CGI specialist will have to deal with that. Just seems like if this was it then I would let you know that I thought this was it. I know everyone is different, but would you leave your voice out of it? In my opinion. " NO "
It's possible that the sound was deleted to protect the identity of the video taker. You know how paranoid (and quite rightly so) ufo types can be.



posted on Apr, 15 2008 @ 02:22 AM
link   
Yes, the birds ARE moving behind the object. Good find.

Secondly, the object does not appear to be CGI. In fact, and this is just my theory, but it looks like a car antenna (or some sort of antenna) that was placed on top of the roof.

Based on the birds flying in the background, I'm going to say - Debunked.



posted on Apr, 15 2008 @ 02:25 AM
link   
Thanks for sharing this one

It's a series: the guy who uploaded them, has problems in order to upload them leaving unaltered the quality ot the videos (and on YouTube is impossible to do)

(original titles)

Is that a spaceship?

Cigar shaped UFO over NJ

Cigar Shaped UFO Genuine

Genuine Cigar shaped UFO over NJ

UFO Video Genuine Cigar shaped

Genuine Cigar Shaped UFO over NJ pt 2

Cigar shaped UFO over NJ pt 3

UFO NJ cigarshaped pt4

Cigar shaped NJ UFO Cigar shaped pt 5

In according to the author's post, it has been taken over Woodbridge township: the first one has been uploaded on December 30, 2006.




Central NJ over Woodbridge township. I live on the north side of the raritan river. This video was shot in the south west sky over the southern tip of edison by industrial highway.

www.youtube.com...

In another post the author claims:


I took this video and it is about twice as long and much more clear in the original. Notice the hovering ball or orb ufo and the chinook helicopter in the first few frames. Sorry about the wires and moving but the kids and I were kinda excited and I was on my porch filming to the S/W. This video was authenticated by Bruce Mcabee and Bud Hopkins as well as NJMUFON. More to come.

www.youtube.com...

Well if it's true, i hope that both Bruce Maccabee and Bud Hopkins had the chance to analyze the original version because it's impossible to make a serious analysis on these ones: i guess that he's making some mistake when he encodes the videos before uploading them, because cartains pixellations cannot be explained with the simple lossy compression imho.
It would be great if he'd upload the original video somewhere.


[edit on 15/4/2008 by internos]



posted on Apr, 15 2008 @ 02:30 AM
link   
You're right,it does seem to go behind it,doesn't it. 41 seconds in the first video.That one needs closer examination,to make sure it isn't a bit of the ol' camera trickery.

And pynner,I'm not a disinfo poster,i just found a youtube video that's not been discussed on here before. Thought I'd bring it on for discussion. I do not work for any goverment agencey (like I'd admit it if I was
) I work for myself,but I contract my talents out for the good of mankind,and do a little work for the devil on the side.



posted on Apr, 15 2008 @ 02:42 AM
link   

Originally posted by Acidtastic
And pynner,I'm not a disinfo poster,i just found a youtube video that's not been discussed on here before.


I don't see anything wrong with that. Besides, this is a good example of little things to look for when determining rather a video is true or false.

A shaky camera? Tree's and house's in the background? That doesn't prove anything. But something as small as birds flying in the background at the same altitude and distance as the supposed objects can prove that the objects are too small to be anything other then camera trickery.



posted on Apr, 15 2008 @ 02:54 AM
link   
Not saying it's a true video shot or not, just saying that one of my lucky handful of sightings happened to be of a silvery metallic cigar shaped ship looking and moving very similar to the objuects in this film. Interesting and duely noted.



new topics

top topics



 
8
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join