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.


Febuary UFO's (nice ending)

page: 1

log in


posted on Mar, 10 2009 @ 04:57 PM
Nice vid , draw your own conclusions
Cant say much about the tube, Interesting Slow Motion at the end

Theres 3 or 4 , watch till the end

[edit on 10-3-2009 by branty]

[edit on 10-3-2009 by branty]

posted on Mar, 10 2009 @ 05:17 PM
The last video, the super-slo mode ending gives me the impression of internal combustion exhaust.

Good vid, none the less. All 3 were thought provoking.


posted on Mar, 10 2009 @ 05:27 PM
reply to post by Cuhail

I think because of the slo- mo, it looks like a trail

posted on Mar, 10 2009 @ 05:44 PM
Well, the first video, honestly, looks like a cigarette lighter in the dark, moving somehow. The closeup and slowmotion shows the movements of a flamme.

The second video is interesting...and confusing.

First of all, you can see strobe lights like you would see on a plane, and the timing in which they alternate is very consistent with strobe lights on airplanes.

BUT, at the same time, the position of the strobe lights in relation to the "main lights" (don't know the word of the headlights of the plane in english) is weird...

...the weirdest thing, that I (someone else maybe is able to do so...) can't explain, is why the 2 lights are alternating in intensity, and their position to the flightpath.

Although I live in the flightpath of the planes to the airport and have seen thousands of planes at night, I never seen this happen.

And also, I can't find any explanation for the second light that apparently is "escorting" the biggest one.

So, nice finding!

The third clip is definatly CGI.

1. The UFO is behind the building. The building has the fog surrounding it, but the UFO isn't visually (at least, not in a reallistic way) affected by it.

2. The UFO movement it's not very consistent with the vibration of the camera. It's too fluid and smooth to be real. It looks like the UFO moves on your screen and not in the video.

But when it moves the second time, it actually looks more realistic. But the image is too poor to give away anything more.

After these two points, you have left the logical questions.

-If a UFO is hovering a few meters away from a huge building, there aren't any reports about that amazing sighting? (im assuming you don't have any info on that clip) Not logical.

-Same as above, but apply it to the whole part of the city... You do see a lot of movement on the streets, and apparently that is a news-helicopter.

-Why the hell would aliens have this kind of behavior thowards a simple helicopter, if we try to contact them without any kind of response? It's hostil, or if they are "playing", it's a very agressive attitude thowards humans.

-If this was a skunk work project, why would they even risk such exposure?

I would love to get my hands on that piece of video, but in HQ, or at least, the first sample available...

But I have no faith in the third clip. Why?

Because it's amazingly similar to a commercial that Sci Fi used some years ago.

This one:

[edit on 10/3/09 by Tifozi]

posted on Mar, 10 2009 @ 06:02 PM
Thanks for the post.

1. Looks like a lantern, the way it moves across the sky and it flickers resembles those flying lanterns that have been seen a lot.

2. Interests me.. but looks conventional with the lights.. has the major light that flashes from side to side and then smaller lights at the back that seem to flicker.. on the fence..

3. CGI.

posted on Mar, 10 2009 @ 06:26 PM
All these UFO videos on YouTube could do without the unrelated music tracks. To me all those videos with that music are not to focus on the subject of UFO's, but to promote someone's music instead.

There are other and better ways to promote one's music, and probably far more credible and a site that promotes independant musical artists.

The NY Trade Center video was found to be fake. CG.


posted on Mar, 10 2009 @ 06:53 PM
reply to post by RFBurns

I usually turn the music off, unless there's some kind of comentating

posted on Mar, 10 2009 @ 07:30 PM
The third is definite CGI.

A pretty poor attempt, I might add.

That fact throws the other 2 attached videos into question also. Faking lights in the sky is far easier than creating a 3D model like was attempted in the 3rd video.

posted on Mar, 10 2009 @ 08:24 PM
Hard to say Branty, the believer in me wants to do just that...believe but the third one is IMO CGI, the first one is questionable due to the lack of focus( although cool none the less!) Star and flag for a good find , I'll wait for some more responces to come to a possible conclusion.

posted on Mar, 10 2009 @ 08:32 PM
reply to post by RFBurns

Hi there RFBurns! as always your opinion is respectable, spot on and a model of
intellectual aptitude.
to you! The video's music track does take something away.

posted on Mar, 11 2009 @ 11:07 AM
More damn irrelevant sound tracks. What is it that people feel compelled to add crappy noise to every video.

#1 Lantern or lanterns. It looks like flame.
#2 Helicopter at night in the far distance. Have seen similar at night from observation park at nearby airport watching Police helicopter chase a car down a highway about 10 miles away. I know it was a helicopter because we followed it with the MkI from the chase to overflying the airport.
#3 CGI

posted on Mar, 11 2009 @ 12:15 PM
That first one is a plastic like bag with a light flashing inside of it or something.

You can see as the wind hits and moves does as a bag would misshapes warps ect.
Not a balloon..a bag


log in