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.

 

Is this plane REALLY a UFO?

page: 2
1
<< 1   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 19 2009 @ 11:11 PM
link   
judging from the tail view that you can see.. it looks like a ERJ 145 or something along those lines

www.gjsmith.com...

just my 2 cents.. ive seen enough of these fly off and bank like that..




posted on Mar, 20 2009 @ 12:30 AM
link   
I can easily tell this is a commercial jet liner (not having read any of the other posts here, but it seems others have confirmed it anyway) so obviously a commercial jet liner is incapable of STOPPING in mid air, dropping 500 feet then continuing on. (as opposed to experiencing turbulence whilst in transit it will drop, but not STOP mid track!)

The manner in which this is shown on the video is clumsy, linear and by someone who doesn't understand the principles of motion (or animation)
and being trained in those area's myself, yea it stands out as a very poor hoax. But I can understand why people like yourself who don't know any better are salivating over this, its not your fault.





Originally posted by The Weaving Spider

Originally posted by atsbeliever
This is an old video, I've seen it before and I thought it was proven a hoax (anyway) aside from the fact its HORRIBLY done. Someone filmed a commercial airline, took it into after effects and messed around with it some. Stupid..


Once agian, the guy who filmed this is mentally ill, he barely knows how to operate his camera.

You are a liar, prove yourself, show us the thread that you claim proved this to be a hoax.
You are trying to explain away this, you think people will believe you though because you claim that it has "already been proven to be a fake", when in fact it hasn't. you also mention After Effects, true, this could be done in after effects, but the man who filmed this is not competent enough to run After Effects, this is real film transcoded to video through a program he has on his xp os computer. I truly feel sorry for the delusional man.

Tell me, does a sane person film pigeons and claim that they are "Demon Birds"?


does a sane person film a car mirror inside of his garage and claim there are demons or aliens in the mirror?



Does a sane person film a street light and claim it's a demon?


This man is not sane, he has some serious problems, he's also very paranoid, he has no reason to fake this stuff.


[edit on 20-3-2009 by atsbeliever]

[edit on 20-3-2009 by atsbeliever]



posted on Mar, 20 2009 @ 02:05 AM
link   
The only way a aircraft can do what this one does. If it has thrusters. This aircraft can turn on a dime, land on a dime, and it can take off quickly. It could land on a tennis court and take off, with out landing or taking off vertically. In a way, it can actually turn 90 degree, and fly backwards. Kind of like a helicopter.



posted on Mar, 20 2009 @ 03:14 AM
link   

Originally posted by kennethmd
The only way a aircraft can do what this one does. If it has thrusters.

Either that or there was a pilot that day needing a change of undies after hitting one heck of an air pocket or turbulence or something similar.



posted on Mar, 20 2009 @ 08:27 AM
link   
My guess is that the image stabilization of the camera focused on the waving branches. When the plane drops, the branches are moving to the left, at the same speed as the plane. The camera stabilizes this motion and the plane seems to stop its movement relative to the branches and the camera. Only the ertical component of the plane's movement cannot be compensated, giving the imporession of a sudden stop and drop.

I bet that this camera operated at maximum zoom, including digital zoom. In that case only a small part of the image sensor is actually being used and the camera has lots of room to select a slightly different part of the sensor if it thinks that this would reduce unwanted movement.

When the plane's drop ends one of three things happen. The camera notices that the movement is continuous and not the result of shaking hands. Or the branches stop moving with the plane and the camera's logic stops the motion tracking because of this. And finally the active part of the sensor reached the sensor's edge and the camera has no alternative but to use the unstabilized image.

I bet that the camera's logic got confused by the branches moving with the plane. In this case it would be impossible to recreate the effect without knowing the camera model.

Not fake, but an artifact of technology.



posted on Mar, 20 2009 @ 08:37 AM
link   

Originally posted by Wonko
My guess is that the image stabilization of the camera focused on the waving branches. When the plane drops, the branches are moving to the left, at the same speed as the plane. The camera stabilizes this motion and the plane seems to stop its movement relative to the branches and the camera. Only the ertical component of the plane's movement cannot be compensated, giving the imporession of a sudden stop and drop.

I bet that this camera operated at maximum zoom, including digital zoom. In that case only a small part of the image sensor is actually being used and the camera has lots of room to select a slightly different part of the sensor if it thinks that this would reduce unwanted movement.

When the plane's drop ends one of three things happen. The camera notices that the movement is continuous and not the result of shaking hands. Or the branches stop moving with the plane and the camera's logic stops the motion tracking because of this. And finally the active part of the sensor reached the sensor's edge and the camera has no alternative but to use the unstabilized image.

I bet that the camera's logic got confused by the branches moving with the plane. In this case it would be impossible to recreate the effect without knowing the camera model.

Not fake, but an artifact of technology.


Now that's an explanation that actually makes some since.

It's clearly not an animation, a two or three microbursts that low would have probably crashed that plane, thrusters are out of the question.

So this actually makes some sense, good job.



posted on Mar, 20 2009 @ 09:00 AM
link   
This the the same guy who used to be known as UFOKID on YouTube if I'm not mistaken.

The same kid(needs help) who filmed shrubs stating that they were really military tanks cloaked to look like shrubs.

I was actually looking for his old stuff for a laugh w/ my co-workers and UFOKID doesn't exits anymore. He's now kingufokid.

The video actually looks like the cameraperson changed their perspective when the plane crosses the bush(shifts to the right). That's my first thought. It's impossible to tell due to the bushes moving however. but it does look like a normal aircraft to me.



posted on Mar, 20 2009 @ 11:12 AM
link   
Ok, done my own analyze of this.
So I did some fast rotoscoping to make it easier to see.
Keep an closer eye on the branches instead of looking at the plane.


(click to open player in new window)


This seems to be, from earlier posts in this thread, to be an old hoax.
So this might have been talk about before, but anyway, the only thing that is happening here is that the shot angle is being changed.

By panning the camera to the right and to move the camare forward he get this effect.

If you are on a big boat you can see the same effect on the water when you are walking back and forward on the deck.



[edit on 20-3-2009 by Akezzon]



posted on Mar, 20 2009 @ 07:39 PM
link   
reply to post by Akezzon
 


I don't believe that it is an intentional hoax, I think he may have been only able to see the plane do this through his cameras view finder, so he was actually trying to line of his view with the tree.



posted on Mar, 21 2009 @ 03:39 AM
link   
reply to post by The Weaving Spider
 


Perhaps....

Perhaps not.

He does not move because the plane moves.
It's rather:
Plane moves because he move.

And since his reaction is "AMAGAAD...!!11!!1" I doubt this was unintentional.
I believe that we are visited, I believe they exist, I believe we have critters in space etc etc. But somewhere we have to drew the line.



new topics

top topics



 
1
<< 1   >>

log in

join