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 VIDEO Elk Grove California Hologram??

page: 3
12
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 19 2008 @ 09:08 AM
link   

Originally posted by venusd
reply to post by internos
 


Aren't we all getting a bit agressive too quickly here, the guy explained he doesn't have the 'raw' footage just what his friend gave him and that he would ask for his friend to provide the raw footage straight off the camera, shouldn't we give him time to contact his friend before being so hard on him??

No, we are not, imho (and by the way are you his/her lawyer?)

So he/she is allowed to ask someone's background, he ask the people to provide screenshots based on on an edited movie and we should to shut up and "obbey to orders", to ask for analysis even after knowing that they would be based on corrupted data, hence of zero reliability?
The point is that if he/she wants to talk about analysis then he/she already knows since post # 3 of this thread what is needed before asking for analysis: no one has been rude and no one is blaming he/she to be a hoaxer or something like that: to analyze a lossy compressed youtube video or an edited video whatsoever is like to try to asses the quality of a perfume by looking at a photograph.
What i've been able to see so far is a HUGE discrepance between photos and video and at the same time i read a claim in according to which the photos and video would portray the same object: now what photos are we talking about? Long exposure? Standard exposure? Double exposure? Edited ones? Exif data may provide the answers. This point has been clarly made right after the op, so to keep on asking for analysis, enhancements and so on is pointless, this is what i meant and this is what i keep thinking about this and all the other threads.


[edit on 19/6/2008 by internos]




posted on Jun, 19 2008 @ 09:14 AM
link   
reply to post by flice
 


come on now, you are asking some rather poinless questions...

the sounds, well if it's an older camera there is a good chance it doesn't have a microphone, you have to remember this is a point and shoot digi camera with a video feature built in, just because it can take video, doesn't mean it has a mic.

also, as far as changing the file name, there is nothing wrong with that and it doesn't suggest tampering, well besides someone changing the files name so they can keep track of it and know what it is when they are going through their HDD clearing things they don't want anymore off.



posted on Jun, 19 2008 @ 09:16 AM
link   
Song Natural blues by Moby .....

Next time I'll get OJ Simpson's lawyers to tipple check my edit my youtube loading my wording my spelling my hair cut .... just so that I don't come across as a time waster..

And it's 7am US where my buddy is so by the grace of god let him get up have breakfast go to work and when he gets a spare moment I am sure he will assist in the scrutiny and hard lined evaluation of this "comedy" file that may have been corrupted....

Looks like it's a case of : "If the Vid doesn't Fit You Must Acquit"

Have faith he will come on here.



[edit on 19-6-2008 by jpvskyfreak]

[edit on 19-6-2008 by jpvskyfreak]



posted on Jun, 19 2008 @ 09:25 AM
link   
reply to post by jpvskyfreak
 


Thanks!


Mod note : Please no more one liners, this could have been done by U2U.

Please Review: Warnings for one-line or short responses
One Line or less Responses or "me too" atta-boy comments contribute nothing to the discussion. These include rows of smilies, "you're wrong", or other similar short responses.

[edit on 22/6/2008 by Sauron]



posted on Jun, 19 2008 @ 09:27 AM
link   
reply to post by SRTkid86
 


No questions are pointless m8. Blind faith is pointless, it only leads to disappointment.

I'm surprised that we by now still are going "woooow!!" after all the bunk and hoaxes lately.... which started off with us going "wooooow!!" and ended up going "yeah, I knew something wasn't quite right".

Stop questioning our right to ask questions. We're not sitting here with tinfoil hats on...



posted on Jun, 19 2008 @ 09:38 AM
link   
reply to post by flice
 


im not questioning your right to ask questions, but you are coming after the man for things that are EASILY explainable with the use of your logic.

like i said, not all point and shoot cameras with a video feature HAVE microphones, so that would be the reason, at least my bust educated guess, as to why there is no sound.

and asking why the file names is not DSC_blahblahblah is pointless. he explained to you, he DIDN'T take the video, and it was sent to him by his friend who did. so it's easily explainable why he doesn't have the raw data with the original generic name the camera gives it.

what im saying is that it's fine to ask questsions, but the ones your asking ARE pointless because even if he said "we turned the sound off, and i changed the file name because i didn't like DSC_blahblahblah" it wouldn't have proved or disproved anything. only that the person taking the video knows how to shut the mic on his camera off, and he knows how to use the "right click" feature on his mouse.

im not trying to argue with you here, im just saying that it's OK to be critical and want answers to unknowns. but it's not OK to berate a man over meaningless points.

if you aren't going to bother to read everything he posts in it's entirety, what gives you the right, or place to ask anything. first read, and if he hasn't answered your questions, THEN you ask. otherwise you aren't doing anything but proving you SKIMMED through the posts, and started bombarding him qith questions. most of which, if you used your powers of deduction and logic, were already answered.

FYI: im not saying "wwooooowww" im simply giving the man the benefit of the doubt UNTIL further proof and evidence can be provided. i understand there have been a lot of hoaxers as of late, but that doesn't mean that EVERYONE who doesn't have all of the information you want, right then and there, is a hoxer. so why don't we all just wait a little while and see what comes from this. once he gets the info you guys want, you can finally start you official analyses and go from there.

[edit on 6/19/08 by SRTkid86]



posted on Jun, 19 2008 @ 09:46 AM
link   
reply to post by SRTkid86
 


It is ok... and this will be my final reply to you SR.
It is ok because often you'll learn more from the way a person answers a question than from the answer itself.
Take your replies here fx. you're going into a very passionate defense for this guy, about a clip that still holds no evidence in either direction. This tells me you hold a great deal of faith in this being real rather than attacking it from a rational and scrutinizing point of view.
But ok, I'll stop caring about what you think about my way of asking and what I ask. I'm harsh and blunt and demand a lot, but that's just the way it is.
Investigation before faith.

Anyways, back on topic, it's getting too personal... I'll come back later when the other guy is off work.



posted on Jun, 19 2008 @ 09:48 AM
link   
reply to post by jpvskyfreak
 

Thank you for the infos, jpvskyfreak:
i would like to point out a detail, just as an example in order to let you know why is ALWAYS necessary to have the original footage:
in the present version of the video, there's an inconsistency between frame 6 (400 ms) and frame 7 (467 ms):
as you can see by yourself, in frame 7, the points B, C, and D are affected by a motion blur, in the direction indicated by the white arrow, while point A, (the UFO) is NOT.

Do you have some clue how it comes (except earthquakes)? Not? Well, i haven't it as well.
Maybe it's just due to some compression artifact, maybe not, but unless we'd have the original footage, we won't be able to say it in a conclusive way.
I know that to be asked to provide the raw/original formats may sound somehow rude, but please believe me: it's a pretty standard request.
The photos *may* be very interesting, in my opinion, but of course they will be useless without the chance to extract exif data.



posted on Jun, 19 2008 @ 09:51 AM
link   
reply to post by flice
 


im haven't gotten personal at all, i just think it doesn't help to rip the man apart before you even give him a chance to provide the evidence you are asking for.

sorry if something i said made you feel as if i was attacking you in any way. i simply don't think ripping into someone before they have a chance to provide you with what you ask for is a good way to go about trying to find the truth.

if you go INTO the investigation, thinking the man is a hoaxer chances are, you are going to be trying to prove that he is hoaxing somehow, rather than taking all the evidence in and juding fairly based on that. it's just shows that you are a bit biased IMO. bias has no place in this kind of thing. you believe or you don't sure, but if you are going to try to pass your self off as someone that CAN find the truth, then I would think a requirement for something like that should be that you are UNBIASED



posted on Jun, 19 2008 @ 10:16 AM
link   
I was thinking that there might be a similarity between this evidence (to be determined) and that of Dorothy Izatt in that the video captures a different image than a still photo. ??

Also you can see the orblike lights floating around in the "blob."

[edit on 19-6-2008 by anyone]



posted on Jun, 19 2008 @ 10:23 AM
link   
This looks eerily similar to the production released a couple of weeks ago where the UFO was recorded by 4 different cameras from 4 different angles. They have justr added a few extra pics this time. I don't mean to sound negative, but this is just a vague and uncompelling as those were. I want to see the real thing just as much as the rest of you, but this just does not do it for me. I'll give them cudos on the production and imagination though.



posted on Jun, 19 2008 @ 10:34 AM
link   
reply to post by internos
 


I just thought about what you see as no "blur" in 6 to 7 may be because it is morphing to fast to have the same affect as a stationary light. It would be REALLY interesting to see this vid zoomed in and at a MUCH slower speed. Just really reminds me of Dorothy Izatt's experiences.

I really hope California dude shows up to talk. Whithout saying too much his testimony could be chalk full of insight.

-later alligator



posted on Jun, 19 2008 @ 11:40 AM
link   
Well, let me start by saying hello, and thank you for all the interest in the Elk Grove video. I am the guy who in fact, took the video, and who has so ardently been defended by my friend wo uploaded it to the site. I must apologize that I had not even known this conversation was even taking place, until this morning. And for those of us who are so deep into this subject, it's inevitable that tensions and opinions will get heated. But without question, it's time for me to answer any questions you may have regarding the footage's legitimacy, the circumstances, etc.

And let me first say, i will get on as often as I can, and will read all posts, making a list of any concerns or questions you may all have, but I may not ave the time to do that daily, so please bear with me. My friend is a bit more tecnically minded wit te uploading of this type of thing to various sites, and I'm just trying to catch up. But here are a few basic answers to what I've read so far.

1. Where is the sound? As one very astute camera expert pointed out on here, tis was an older Coolp[ix model with merely a setting for video, with no mic. I will look to upload the original footage to the recommended site(s) in its original, silent form.

2. Why didn't he zoom in? Also noted, there was no zoom option within the video, as the video is being taken. But more importantly, what would i ave zoomed in on? The gold 'ship' actually filled the entire field of view in my camera as I filmed this! I thought that WAS what I was filming. Only after playback, did some OTHER craft appear deep in the background! Never even saw that one. The swirling golden lights on the still sots are the closest thing to what was in my field of vision. But on still shot mode, it simply would not photgraph clearly. That in itself is extremely strange. This was not due to a shaky hand, as the clearly defined spherical orbs within the structure would suggest. This is the reason for my OPINION that this was a hologram, and not a physical craft. So we have a blinking, slow moving craft in the background never seen, and a close-up luminescent gloden craft that couldn't be photgraphed. I'll gladly take any other theories on this. That was only my best guess.

3. Are you confusing the street lamp for something anamolous? No. That doesn't even come into the conversation. It is what it is. I was filming a gold ship, and there happened to be a light post in the frame. it means nothing. But looking at the video, it can help you recognize the slow speed of this object, and that it was in fact moving. So in that regard, it becomes a helpful point of reference.

4. Where are the original pics and raw video? I have it all, probably renamed them, as one individual pointed out would be the case, to tell them apart. I'll forward or upload all I have from the event as soon as I can. In the mean time, I think my friend did a great job with what I gave him, and with the limited details he had of tis event. Sorry you took such a beating on my behalf! But thank you. Maybe you sould be my lawyer.

5. Is tis legit or a hoax? Of course, you all know nothing of who I am, and it is only my word. But for the better part of a decade, I have taken this subject extremely seriously, and am just like everyone else, who just wants to get through all the ridiculously hoaxed items to get the facts. This was a real event. I can assure you. No editing of the footage. IT was life changing, to be quite honest. iT was massive. It was silent. And I have no clear understanding why it happened to me, and in that sleepy town.

6. And finally, why am I the only one who stopped alongside the highway? I wasn't. I was one of several. It was a dangerous ting to do during such a busy time on the highway. The video is not focused on those people. I had more important things in my sights. Many probably drove by, shocked and awestruck, but for obvious safety reasons, kept driving.

I'll be on again to respond soon. Thank you.



posted on Jun, 19 2008 @ 11:43 AM
link   
Ive lived in elk grove for over 17years, to me it looks like this was filmed with the car parked on the south bound side, near the calvine road exit possibly, i cant stand the way people drive on the freeway right there,makes me sick.

anyway, if you could tell me where you were parked that would give me a frame of mind as to where you were looking out.

its totally not in line with sacramento airport, and mather flights usually dont take place after sun down, helicopters could have been hovering over the ghetto but, usually they circle faster than that and the lights are very intense when they point to the ground. sacramento or elk grove especially NEVER have blimps roaming around at night.

sorry people but if its a hoax then fine ill take it up the bum then, otherwise i think we have some very compelling footage here.

as a side not for those not familiar with the elk grove terrain, its very miss leading to most people that elk grove is just south of sacramento and looks to be like a nice suburban location, one thing thats over looked is that elk grove has nothing but valley and wetlands surrounding the western and southern areas, UFO's could easily be laying low in the surrounding area without ever being seen.



posted on Jun, 19 2008 @ 12:08 PM
link   
I am really very interested now. Unlike any of the other vids. as of late here on this site have been even close to as interesting as this video along with testimony. I am the most interested in your saying that what you saw and what is on the video doesn't match.

-Is it safe to assume that the still photos is more along the lines as to what you saw?

-Was it a constantly morphing object?

-Also, have you experienced anything like this before without having caught it on film?

Thanks for sharing. -Still trying to remain skeptical, but my heart says this is something.



posted on Jun, 19 2008 @ 12:14 PM
link   
reply to post by LordThumbs
 



This goes back a few years for me, as I now live near San Jose. But if I can remember the street names, I would have actually been entering the northbound lane of highway 99 off Laguna Blvd. I hope I got that name right.

But it is the drivers heading in the soutbound direction that would have been driving right into this event. This is the direction my camera is facing as i filmed.

Also, it has been pointed out that no one heard of this event in Elk Grove, at least what I read on here. That very evening, I personally listened to half a dozen excited and nervous calls into radio stations and TV. No one had a good answer, and the police also stated no real understanding of what this was, but there's 'no reason for concern'.

I will go out on a limb here, and fill in one more important facet to this extraordinary event. I did visit with police the following day, though I never filed a report with them, or with MUFON. At least with MUFON, I have some regrets in not doing that.

The following day, after visiting local police, I was confronted by two men in a black suburban, who literally stared at me, in front of my place of work for a full eight hours. Never leaving. Just staring. My crew at work was a bit shook up, and I was determined to confront these gentleman. But against the frigtened wishes of my employees, I did not. They then left when I left for the evening, and I never saw them again. Not walking up to that vehicle is regret #2.

So, who were they? Did I have the only footage? Who knows. I have never been directly threatened, though. Unless you consider that a threat. And I suppose you could.

In any case, it fortified my belief that this was no simple helicopter. But do be sure to Google the Battle of Los Angeles when you can, as this truly parallels what I saw.

All the best,
Dennis



posted on Jun, 19 2008 @ 12:29 PM
link   
your correct in saying that it was the laguna blvd exit. so i think its save to say that you were pointed in the direction that i mentioned in the last post, the wetlands. if you were on the north bound side, pointing back towards the south west, then just past the lights on the horizon is laguna west which is only homes a AAA road service building and then interstate 5 beyond that is wetlands and the river. ive lived in laguna west for 4 years, and planes DO NOT FLY FROM that direction over elk grove.

The lights you captured on the horizon are in the area near the bestbuy,bj's resturaunt,century theatres and so on.

Its a shame you never approached them guys in the suburban although im sure they would have just told you to keep you mouth shut about it. Ive read account of other person (JIM SPARKS author of "the keepers") that when you approach these guys, you can basically say and do whatever you want to them, they will only stay calm and repeat, do not talk about what you have seen.

thanks for sharing this, from one elk grove resident to the next, i understand your honesty in posting this video. I KNOW that if it was something that caught your attention from that direction in elk grove it was a very astute observation! i would have pulled over just the same.

It would still be important to note that mufon should know about this account.



posted on Jun, 19 2008 @ 12:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by flice
reply to post by jpvskyfreak
 


It's not about that anymore. I don't care how much you believe it is what it is, if you can't back it up or at least document that the footage is untampered with then there's no real point in discussing it as being real.


First we tell people that their stories are false because they have no documentation...
Then when they have documentation we say their stories are false unless they can document that the documentation has not been tampered with...
Then when they document that, we're going to ask for something else no doubt...

Of course there is reason to discuss it...
The discussion can go on at the same time we are trying to discover whether the footage is authentic or not... some would call that not being ignorant, butthat word also gets thrown around a lot here...

I think its a great documentation... while the UFO in the film could be CGI, the still images would be harder to pull off, they look really well done and not clear enough to have been made in PS... not saying that they werent, but they look really good.

I definitely think an investigation as to authenticity of this footage needs to take place, but you've got my attention.

Are you saying that the cloud like object with the little dots didnt show up on the video camera and only on the camera? and that the UFO on the video camera was what was behind the strange cloud like object?
If so, then your theory is that the cloud like object was a hologram trying to cover up the UFO in the background?
interesting... please clear that up if you could.



posted on Jun, 19 2008 @ 12:50 PM
link   
reply to post by internos
 


Nice find Internos, but D barely seems to have shifted, and the light from the lightbulb doesnt change at all.
Why would only those two or three points of light move and not all the light in the still?

-Odessy



posted on Jun, 19 2008 @ 12:51 PM
link   
With Internos on this, there is not much for me to add that he would not cover.

However, I would like to remind people who are familiar with animation that the stills taken as screenshots from the video are not going to give you the same thing as the still photo's that were taken by Dennis. The "tween" function of video would likely create quite a bit of blur, not to mention the frame rate of the video recorder, and the shutter speed that goes with it. The goal of video is to make a seamless transition from frame to frame from the perspective of the viewer. Now, i know nothing about video camera's, or camera's in general. But i do have some experience in laymans video editing and Flash 8...and that would be my experience.

The camera, if on a fast shutter speed, would take vastly different images while in "still mode".



new topics

top topics



 
12
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join