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: 2
8
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 15 2008 @ 05:25 AM
link   
When videoing with a not so decent camera, such a hand held phone or mini cam, when you zoom in, its almost impossible to keep the camera still.

Try it with your phone camera's now.
Another point, is that the guy was probably looking at the things in the sky with his own eyes, which was probaly why the camrea doesn't stay ont he objects.

But the steady camera work, is very difficult to do when at full zoom.




posted on Apr, 15 2008 @ 05:59 AM
link   

Originally posted by Ramb0
just look at the center of the first video..





I see the skeptics arguments are getting more complex





posted on Apr, 15 2008 @ 07:25 AM
link   
Id say this is either cgi foolery or lenticular cloud formations.

I cant see any evidence as to an alien craft here, the fact the guy has posted more videos of the same thing means...

1, they are fake and hes making them regularly
2, they are lenticular clouds that happen to form near his house
3, hes remarkably lucky to be the only person in the world to have caught so many sightings of UFOs on camera. (no one else saw these in his area?)

Also with so many happening round his area wouldnt you have set up slightly more cameras by now? maybe invited friends/ufologists/reporters over?



posted on Apr, 15 2008 @ 08:22 AM
link   
I don't understand why one video (the one in the OP) shows no "tape counter":
uk.youtube.com...

But one of the other videos found by internos shows a similar scene without the tape counter:
www.youtube.com...

I suppose one could say that the the photographer shut off the counter mid-way through -- the only problem with that is that the "mothership" is doing the exact same maneuver in each video.



posted on Apr, 15 2008 @ 09:44 AM
link   
The author claims that the bird/s fly in front of the object, not behind.

I find these to be not very convincing. At one point he raises the camera slowly out of shot and then lowers it back down. The camera work looked deliberate to hide some parts of the video.



posted on Apr, 15 2008 @ 11:13 AM
link   
Lame focusing. I've seen better.



posted on Apr, 15 2008 @ 12:53 PM
link   
I suspect these are remote control, allthough i have no way of confirming that.



posted on Apr, 15 2008 @ 01:57 PM
link   
Alright, so I ran this frame by frame so we could focus on what happens with the bird. Does it go behind the UFO or in front of it?

First frame:



Second frame:



Third frame:



Fourth frame:



Fifth frame:



You can click on the pictures to see the entire picture, not sure why it's cutting the right side off, most likely because they're larger then 640x480. I apologize for leaving my media player's frame in the picture, I did this really quickly.

What is the consensus with these frames in mind?
Either way, this really makes me question the size of this object.

[Edit to add: When I say frame by frame, they might not be exactly next to each other frame by frame but I selected the best frames that still show the bird semi-clearly]

[edit on 15-4-2008 by HaTaX]



posted on Apr, 15 2008 @ 02:15 PM
link   
well,I sent the user who posted this video,asking for an expert,a message. Asking him to come on here and give us the real footage. If he does or not,well,time will tell us.

But that looks to me like the bird does behind it. Nice work HaTaX


[edit on 15/4/2008 by Acidtastic]



posted on Apr, 15 2008 @ 02:21 PM
link   
reply to post by Acidtastic
 

That video is EXACTLY what we need in order to discuss this case seriously.
Nicely done.


reply to post by HaTaX
 


ED

HaTaX, i hope to see you working asap on the original footage (if it will be provided) because you did a nice work:

sadly, lossy compression (and a wrong encoding with bad settings) may generate noises which are able to confuse/misplace the pixels: these are small objects, so a pixel which appears in the wrong place due to one of those issues, may bring us to a wrong conclusion.
The author claimed that the original video is of a good quality: let's wait and see



[edit on 15/4/2008 by internos]



posted on Apr, 15 2008 @ 02:36 PM
link   
Oh-Come-On-People!

This is so pathetic that its unbelievable. Just stand back for a moment and think about what you are looking at.

Its just small blurry pixelated dots!!!

WTF!!!

What are you trying to prove, that pixels move across the screen???

Why do you guys insist on wasting your time on this crap?






posted on Apr, 15 2008 @ 02:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by housegroove23
Oh-Come-On-People!

This is so pathetic that its unbelievable. Just stand back for a moment and think about what you are looking at.

Its just small blurry pixelated dots!!!

WTF!!!

What are you trying to prove, that pixels move across the screen???

Why do you guys insist on wasting your time on this crap?



Because you have to look at absolutly EVERYTHING in detail. Why,even at home i walk round on all fours with a magnifying glass strapped to me head. (this may be a lie) But seriously,I think it's better to properly confirm/debunk something before you just run in waving yer arms calling it stupid. The bird could look like it's going behind due to some compression issue. The poster of the video says "in the origional footage it's just so wow" Or somethin to that effect,when I mentioned that it certainly looks like the bird goes behind it. So I guess we'll wait and see if this unmolested copy turns up for the ATS wolverines to pick it appart layer by layer.



posted on Apr, 15 2008 @ 02:59 PM
link   

Originally posted by Acidtastic
Why do you guys insist on wasting your time on this crap?


But seriously,I think it's better to properly confirm/debunk something before you just run in waving yer arms calling it stupid.


Unfortunately, even in the best case scenario, the only thing that might be said about it is that it appears to be legitimate video that shows something odd. That's all. Nothing more. What the "objects" might be, of course, is impossible to determine. Although that won't stop some idiots from declaring it proof positive of aliens.



posted on Apr, 15 2008 @ 03:01 PM
link   
reply to post by freakyclown
 


Yup, I agree. Its funny how some people can just video UFO's at "will", claim they have been taping them for years....but still produce lousy shots?!?

Use your common sense, reason and logic here folks. No need to even bother with the content of the video. Look at the facts (or lack of) surrounding the the case and the video becomes meaningless. Seriously, this thing stinks like most of these videos due do. Common sense

I say this over and over......there is almost no need to even bother with video content with things like this. Think about it.



posted on Apr, 15 2008 @ 03:14 PM
link   
reply to post by Nohup
 


That is exactly what I am talking about. IF, you do get the original its just going to be a little bit better than what we are looking at already. Which is not going to do anything for anybody.

Don't you guys get it, you will never see the smoking gun evidence that you seek with ANY quality photo or video!!!

The smoking gun evidence that you seek is more under your nose than you think. Its just the fact that a lot of people refuse to look and see whats right in front of their face.


[edit on 4/15/08 by housegroove23]



posted on Apr, 15 2008 @ 03:27 PM
link   
I guess that now who knows me enough, is aware that i HATE to waste my time, especially with the hoaxes;
with that being said i guess that this ***may*** be post processed, ***likely*** post processed but NOT ***for sure*** post processed, because what we are looking at is a bunch of remixed pixels: its quality is so crappy that i really think it would be worthless to be analyzed.
BUT
One thing is to claim that is CGI
ANOTHER one is to claim that it's a lenticular formation
ANOTHER one is to claim that it's a blimp or a balloon:
now our purpose should be to find out WHAT is it: is there someone here able to prove WHAT exactly is? If yes, then this would be an IFO, and end of story. If not, then this is a UFO, and the people should feel free to discuss it in Aliens & UFOs forum, unless i'm missing something here.
The guy claimed to have an original video? Well, let's wait and see.


[edit on 15/4/2008 by internos]



posted on Apr, 15 2008 @ 04:02 PM
link   
well,it looks like all we can do is pontificate,as the fella replied. He said that he knows of ats,but wants to send it to mufon. I'm right in thinking that mufon usually post any videos they get up. So maybe there's hope yet.



posted on Apr, 15 2008 @ 04:36 PM
link   
Hi-Just popping in here for a sec as I said I'd do - I wrote the poster, gave him my background, and asked him if he wants it examined.

We'll see what his answer is. I'll keep ya posted.



posted on Apr, 15 2008 @ 04:57 PM
link   
reply to post by jritzmann
 


Good on ya boss man! I hope he sends a copy to all who ask.



posted on Apr, 15 2008 @ 05:52 PM
link   
reply to post by jritzmann
 


well lets hope that he responds with the video hey.

-fm




top topics



 
8
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join