It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


Giant battleship in the sky?

page: 2
<< 1    3  4 >>

log in


posted on Jul, 21 2008 @ 12:17 PM

Originally posted by Outrageo
reply to post by internos

Who says that the daylight view is at the same angles and perspective of the night shot?

NOT me.

In fact, how can we tell it is in front of the same light post?!? There must be thousands of identical light posts along innumerable roads in the region, many of which can be photographed at all sorts of angles with many backgrounds.

I agree

Again - with all due respect to all posters, I WANT this to be a star battleship ufo alien craft more than anything. I just find the fire arguments and evidence (particularly the great analysis in the other threads) to be substantially more plausible. Unfortunately, wishing for a battleship won't make it one.

Onward...(for me anyway). take care, all...

no: you should find the exact location of the sighting, and you did NOT.
The analysis so far debunked the previous theory, while what we need in order to debunk some cases are FACTS.
What facts are you providing, may i ask, mate?

[edit on 21/7/2008 by internos]

posted on Jul, 21 2008 @ 12:38 PM
Are you blind? I tis obviously NOT fire burning.

It is unexplained, but looks much like manmade lighting, and that leads me to think it is Military verse off world technology.

Very nice craft either way.

posted on Jul, 21 2008 @ 12:56 PM
Could be fire, as it seems completely stationary. Six hours would also indicate a fire. The daylight photo is obviously a diferrent area (light at different angle, and I can't recall palm trees growing very successfully in that state..

posted on Jul, 21 2008 @ 01:09 PM
awesome footage.

who would take out a camera and stand outside that long to record common fire far away? c'mon.

maybe the object's cloaking shield went out but they thought it was still on.

posted on Jul, 21 2008 @ 02:03 PM
reply to post by internos

Thanks Internos!!

As always your analysis is great, I´ve said this before and I´ll say it again, the owners of ATS are very lucky to have you around

Your analysis as always proves to be first class


This footage does not seem to be a fire to me, the mountains in the area are right from the object and they are too distant and not high up enough.

posted on Jul, 21 2008 @ 02:12 PM
Nice video, I don't think it's fire but also it's really too blurry and too difficult to make out to confirm it's a craft.

Not sure what to make of it, but thanks anyway, hadn't seen this before.

posted on Jul, 21 2008 @ 03:09 PM
If you guys watch the video in full screen , that does not even closely resembles a helicopter.

posted on Jul, 21 2008 @ 04:09 PM
Two things I want to say about this video,

I think the thing to watch out for is any ufo video that shows foreground elements in the left or right corner. Hoaxers tend to put objects of reference in the shot to demonstrate the motion tracking of the "UFO" against the background increasing the video's authenticity.

Second is the clip to black that you see in the video. Crappy cameras tend to clip to black areas of the image that has received little, or undetectable light. HOwever, in this video, the black clippings seems to happen all over the place regardless of light intensitiy.

Also, the black clippings seem to enlarge as the picture is zoomed in. When instead there would not be this random black clippings in a digital video. Now I didn't have speakers so I can't tell if the guy said it was filmed on analog but if it was digital...this is definitly not digital camera behavior.

posted on Jul, 21 2008 @ 04:17 PM
Not the fire video again!

Anyway, if you'd like to read Rob Kritkausky's (Worldblend) response to ATS on a 2005 thread about this oft posted video, it starts here...

There is also a direct link to the video in there.

I trust the guy about as far as I can throw him. Someone asked him to give the location of the filming and he completely ignored the question. Gee, I wonder why? He seems like another Michael Lee Hill trying to pass-off something ordinary as extraordinary in an attempt to make a name for himself.

posted on Jul, 21 2008 @ 04:23 PM
In the video there is a fence behind the lamp post, the photos only show the top of a lamp post (how convenient). IMHO the two do not appear to be one and the same.

It appears to be a fire, not to mention if something was stationary in the skies above Phoenix for 6 hours, literally hundreds of F-16's would have been scrambled from Luke AFB to chase it down. I don't recall seeing one other craft in the sky besides the "fire".

Having lived in Phoenix/Scottsdale for 18 years it appears to be your standard brush fire on a rigde top. What surprises me it that this footage won an award.

posted on Jul, 21 2008 @ 04:31 PM
looks like a helicopter esp in the start of the video. here's my screenie and the helicopter outline but i'm not 100% sure, could be something else.
i really wish it's a UFO

posted on Jul, 21 2008 @ 05:27 PM
reply to post by Outrageo

I see your point, thank you!

posted on Jul, 21 2008 @ 06:40 PM
I could use adobe premiere and make convincing ufo footage. The ufo could hover, shoot from place to place, abduct people, and even display a cryptic message (don't forget the redneck commentary of "get the kids Martha it's a space ship!). The thing is until I see someone actually use a decent camera when recording a video it's hard to believe anything. You don't even need editing software to fake a 1.3 megapixel (or worse) video. All you have to do string up your hunting dog in Christmas lights and hang it from a tree. It was a simple excuse in the 90s but today you have video cameras on cell phones that make the standard 2 mega pixels. Also most cameras today are 5 mega pixels, have a built in video camera, and are quite cheap.

So until I see a video worth being called a "video" in this age of technology I won't be like "holy sh- aliens!". I mean it's not even you tube quality (640x480 is low enough but what's youtube? 320x... something)

[edit on 21-7-2008 by Aron1138]

posted on Jul, 21 2008 @ 06:44 PM
this is the same kind of energy emittion as the tallahasse( not spelt right) video. Watch the this video, you can clearly see the red energy transform and shapeshift,. Pretty damn amazing.

This is the real deal, helicopter.....umm no.
great post just confirms that the reactor does indeed produce some kind of red energy.

posted on Jul, 21 2008 @ 06:53 PM
The video is beyond low resolution for all you know it could be the ghost of Elvis. (did you also notice that the object was 100% stationary throughout the entire video?)

[edit on 21-7-2008 by Aron1138]

posted on Jul, 21 2008 @ 07:01 PM
As fantastic as this may be, if it were sitting there for 6 hours as stated in the video, how is it that no one else has video of it and of a better quality? you would think that the local news stations would have been all over that with better video cameras and helicopters.

Cool if real but like someone pointed out, no military to chase it away?

Although someone stated a fire, I would think that with winds at 30mph you would see it spreading rapidly in a six hour time I doubt it is a fire.

Great find though!!

[edit on 21-7-2008 by QBSneak000]

posted on Jul, 21 2008 @ 07:12 PM
I've never understood why when these things are supposed to be visible for so long, the person filming doesn't drive/walk closer to it. I can promise you, if I see something like that, or something that goes down on the ground, I'm grabbing my camera, scared as I might be, and heading out there!

posted on Jul, 21 2008 @ 07:23 PM
Load of garbage. End of story. Can't believe I wasted my time downloading it.

Fuzzy footage is utterly useless as has been pointed out and this is about as fuzzy as footage gets. And why the hell does some knuckle head have to call it a battleship? Even if it were convincing footage of some flying craft why a battleship? Why not luxury liner or sanitation vessel? why call it anything at all unless you know? It's embarrassing to see such dopiness.

Also when are people going to learn that without very specific reference points it is almost impossible to tell the size of and object at a distance.

posted on Jul, 21 2008 @ 07:32 PM
reply to post by Camilo1


This looks EXACTLY like something I saw about 21 years ago.

It was late at night and I heard what sounded like a small chainsaw way in the distance, but with no variation in the sound. I went outside and it looked like the sky was moving overhead.

As I looked up, I noticed what I described at the time as "An Aircraft Carrier in the Sky... almost just like that star destroyer in StarWars". I was 15 at the time and had never really seen an Aircraft Carrier, but this thing was huge. As it made its way over head, I saw THESE EXACT SAME LIGHTS on trailing edge of it.

It looked nothing like what I would have expected a UFO to look. I remember remarking on how unaerodynamic it was.

OP Thanks for the post!

I got tears when I saw this video.

21 years ago, and I will never forget that thing.

posted on Jul, 21 2008 @ 07:33 PM
reply to post by Camilo1

Appears most definitely to be antigravitational craft. Whether extraterrestrial is another story. Beware of project Greenstar!

new topics

top topics

<< 1    3  4 >>

log in