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 Hunters Reveal Daylight Footage of Triangle UFO

page: 2
1
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 13 2009 @ 08:35 PM
link   
reply to post by Jay-in-AR
 


The pine tree was fine. The movement of the "UFO" through the pine tree was not fine. It was too erratic and looked very much like it was edited in. The movement could also have been from the cameraman moving around trying to get the shot, but I didn't hear any movement from him.




posted on Mar, 13 2009 @ 08:43 PM
link   
reply to post by _BoneZ_
 


But the thing is - you have no reference of the objects movement BEFORE the pine tree was there.

Just saying, "it looks fake" doesn't do. You need a stabilized image, first and foremost.
Then you need to determine the points of light relative to one another in reference to whatever else is in the frame.

Then we may get somewhere. Until then, you can't say either way.



posted on Mar, 13 2009 @ 08:53 PM
link   
Very fake.

Watch the object as it gets to the pine tree instead of maintaining a constant course forwards it looks like it jitters backwards and forwards as he shakes the camera I would have thought even if he had been shaking the camera the object would have stayed in a relative position with the other object in the shot being the pine tree, it doesn't look to that.



posted on Mar, 13 2009 @ 09:33 PM
link   
reply to post by Jay-in-AR
 


YOU may need a stabilized image and YOU may not be able to say either way, but some of us can see the blatant. That object does not maintain a constant speed through the trees and it's flight pattern is erratic as it shoots forward, goes backwards then forward again, up and down.

Even if it had an erratic flight pattern before the tree, it would still look like it was edited in. So you really don't need to see how it was flying before it got behind the tree.

It's easy to insert an object into a video with just a blue sky and no frame of reference. Once you get inanimate objects into the scene, then it becomes significantly harder to make the image move exactly with the camera movements. This object did not move fluidly through the air nor was it matched correctly with the camera movements.

Just as nosmokinggun above has said, it looks very fake.

[edit on 13-3-2009 by _BoneZ_]



posted on Mar, 13 2009 @ 09:36 PM
link   
reply to post by _BoneZ_
 


So it is "easy" to put something like that in against a blue sky?
Even while the entire frame is shaking like a dog crapping peach seeds?

Like I said, you need a reference. And with the entire frame vibrating, you have no reference.
Look, I'm not saying that the shot is genuine. Just that you can't say for certain it is fake because it moves in an apparent erratic fashion.

Edit to note: I saw the weird movement also.
Almost directly after it moves behind the tree. However, I can't say that this is the object and not the zoom in combination with operator movement.




[edit on 13-3-2009 by Jay-in-AR]



posted on Mar, 14 2009 @ 02:39 PM
link   
reply to post by _BoneZ_
 


I noticed the same thing. It looks as if the triangle was added on the video. I wonder what the video analysis will state in the episode? The video is sketchy at best, and may possibly be a hoax.

The plant/tree seems to be the undoing.



posted on Mar, 19 2009 @ 08:16 PM
link   
This has nothing to do with the first daylight sighting, this video is at the very end of the show.

Now this looks interesting, forgive me if this has been talked about already. But here's the youtube video, plus more.

www.youtube.com...

[edit on 19-3-2009 by Whiteone]



posted on Mar, 19 2009 @ 10:48 PM
link   
reply to post by Whiteone
 


Looks very fake to me. Most clear videos are.



posted on Mar, 20 2009 @ 01:04 PM
link   
here is the ufo hunters show on giant triangles. they did some analysis of the video in question. the rest of the program is a wasted opportunity imo.

aliencasebook.blogspot.com...



posted on Mar, 20 2009 @ 02:01 PM
link   
They did examine the video and it appears to be a solid object. It does look added on, but it was a small camera and could be the way it is presented on the computer.

The episode was better than the last one, and had some very good witnesses talk about what they saw.

The best part was making an exact model of the famed "flying fish" gold object found in South America. The styrofoam duplicate not only glided, but landed with its nose up in the air just like a space shuttle lands.

The worst moment was Bill talking about space travel and stating that there is a record of that actually happening. Talking about an alleged happening as fact does not do the show any good. It is trying to gather evidence about what is happening, not stating hearsay as fact.

Overall, an enjoyable episode. I like the new guy and his more skeptical approach. That is needed to bring the others down to earth.



posted on Mar, 20 2009 @ 02:04 PM
link   
Piece of garbage video.

Line 2



posted on Mar, 20 2009 @ 02:16 PM
link   
If you watch the UFO hunters episode, they did an analysis on the video and stabilized it.

They came to the conclusion that it was just one solid object, not three.

I agree that Bill bringing up time travel as if it was documented fact was pretty dumb. If you watch that scene, you can see Pat Uskert make a face right when he says that like "wow i can't believe you just said that". I never liked Bill, he always seems a little too eager to believe. It could be proven a plane and I have a feeling he would still find some way to say it was driven by an alien.

Also, it WAS Pat Uskert's voice in the background, he was there with the guy when it happened. Apparently there were a lot of sightings in the area and he was out there skywatching. He said he did not see the object, he was trying to get his camera going or something.



posted on Mar, 21 2009 @ 07:05 AM
link   
It doesn't look fake to me but...as another poster said, three lights in the sky, ho hum.

There a many, many prosaic explanations for three lights in the sky moving as they did. Not saying what it was, just saying.



posted on Mar, 21 2009 @ 10:04 AM
link   
well the UFO might look a little eratic because you have 3 things moving, the camera, the pine tree, and the ufo. The wind is blowing the pine tree, the camera is a little shaky, and with the UFO moving, its definately going to make it look a lot different than what it would if you were watching it with your own eyes.



posted on Mar, 21 2009 @ 01:22 PM
link   
reply to post by Pimpish
 


I still like Bill even if he is a little far out. He grows on you after a while.

I think some of us tend to judge the videos on YouTube too harshly because the quality of that video is not very good. Seeing the video on my TV was much better than when I saw it on my computer monitor. (I have an el cheapo computer and moniter that cost me $400 including the printer.)

The one reason I am retracting my statement is that there was more than one witness there, and the more stable member of the show UFO Hunters at that.



posted on Mar, 24 2009 @ 12:51 PM
link   
yep id go with whiteone on the last triangle footage right at the very end of the episode:



Now this is some nice nice footage.



posted on Mar, 24 2009 @ 12:59 PM
link   

Originally posted by antar
So if these guys are 'the' ufohunters, why were they SO freaked out upon seeing a UAP? The footage was very poorly shot and the lights looked like manmade, not natural.


The day you show me footage of a UFO that's well shot by a professional crew, who knew exactly where to look, and you claim that it's the only good evidence... that's the day I'll explain to you what fake video is.



posted on Mar, 24 2009 @ 01:10 PM
link   
My judgment is it's a fake. Here's why...

1) The "shake" of the UFO and the pine tree don't match up.
2) This means that we are seeing a composite of 2 videos
3) The pine needles were shot against a green screen backdrop and then the "UFO" video was chroma-keyed into the background.
4) They then attempted to match the shake by hand, frame-by-frame
5) Using chroma-key always requires a "dissolve" between the foreground object and the background, and you can see how they tried to deal with that by making the UFO pop in and out only in large gaps between the pine limbs.
6) Small gaps would have created too much of a dissolve (revealing the trick), so they had to turn the UFO on and off.
7) If you watch close you can see this trick occurring.

It was a good effort though.

And on a joking note, you can also tell its fake because the UFO never goes in and out of focus. We all know a true UFO camera man never uses manual focus!!!



posted on Mar, 27 2009 @ 12:10 AM
link   
Two lights seem to appear on these so called triangles.
They would be side by side.
A virtical stack might mean the craft is no longer suspended
by the main motor.
The main motor is central to the craft and exposed only by
a dim light in photos.
The bright pair of lights are most likely landing gear covers
capturing St Elmos light from all the static around the ship.
Hover in a vertical position has to be from some fouled up
control. Some sideways motion beam is now the proping
up the ship.



posted on Mar, 27 2009 @ 08:08 AM
link   

Originally posted by easynow

Originally posted by Shakezoola
Yet again another crappy, blurry, inconclusive video.

2nd


it's a ufo video what did you expect ?...lol

might be interesting to see what they do with the video on the ufo hunters show

[edit on 13-3-2009 by easynow]
This just made me laugh really loud for some reason. Hehe, yes, if the craft was clear, then it would be an Identified Flying Object(IFO).


On topic: I think this video was in Dan Aykroyds movie, but I'm not to sure cause I've only watched it once. Its hard to tell if its one craft or three, but I don't see any blinking lights, and it doesn't appear to be CGI.

Not bad




top topics



 
1
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join