UFO Video London

page: 24
72
<< 21  22  23    25  26  27 >>

log in

join

posted on Apr, 30 2009 @ 07:13 PM
link   
Well I still can't decide what that little device is but it sure does look like it has exactly 3 green LEDs on it. I looks like the leads for the LEDs are going into a circuit board and soldered on the other side so it may be something out of its case or maybe one of those little circuit boards that have LEDs on them that people wear for flair at Christmas time. Seems a bit big for that though. They usually use surface mount LEDs, not through hole. Are those CR2032 coin cell batteries (blue things) on the top of the board? They look about the right size for that. That could be a fourth LED covered up by the wrinkles in the cloth in the far corner of the circuit board.

Is that a bed its on? Maybe its the inside of a We-Vibe.

Edit to add more info

[edit on 30-4-2009 by dainoyfb]




posted on Apr, 30 2009 @ 07:36 PM
link   
reply to post by smurfy
 


It's probably buried somewhere on this thread and I missed it, but what is the connection between that photo and the guy that made the video?



posted on Apr, 30 2009 @ 08:28 PM
link   
reply to post by ArMaP
 
Hi Armap,
That photo is one I managed to get from video mans site,
right before he removed all his pictures,
which included "the string of green pearls" that Rightuos
got...I followed Rightuos first link at the time.
Anyway I think what you did on the video is more telling,
plus the light splatter on the window at 22 seconds
right after the bit you showed.



posted on Apr, 30 2009 @ 08:37 PM
link   
reply to post by smurfy
 


I think the fact that the guy removed the incriminating images when they were showed on ATS says an awful lot. For the believers, explain why he removed those images that looked rather similar if they didn't matter?



posted on Apr, 30 2009 @ 08:40 PM
link   
reply to post by dainoyfb
 
It looks like a bed to me,
and the two blobs on top of the "box" could be
Blutac.
The "box" itself could be,(since he performs)
either a transmitter or reciever for a radio mike,
I use one myself,although mine,(the transmitter)
has just one red LED for power status,
but the reciever has a series of LEDs in different colours up to several greens to show maximum reception.
P.S. just saw your post re aircraft,there's more in that article,
and it mentions just what you say,
several forms,but it just happens to be that the 400hz
as general power and the 400hz for the LEDs,
is a lucky coincidence..newest planes may be all LED
for instruments,but don't quote me on that!


[edit on 30-4-2009 by smurfy]



posted on Apr, 30 2009 @ 08:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by ArMaP
reply to post by smurfy
 


It's probably buried somewhere on this thread and I missed it, but what is the connection between that photo and the guy that made the video?


ArMap, my friend. Here is a split of the video "departure" frame next to a still that was on his My Space page. Compelling No?






[edit on 30-4-2009 by kinda kurious]



posted on Apr, 30 2009 @ 08:58 PM
link   
reply to post by smurfy
 


Yeah, the Blutac is actually a really good theory.

The bed/We-vibe comment was a joke.



posted on Apr, 30 2009 @ 09:08 PM
link   
reply to post by ImaginaryReality1984
 
Hi Image,
That is my thoughts too,
A high-tech answer is good to explain things,
but this one is in your face,
why take pictures off your site when you put
them there for people to see in the first place?
plus,as Rightuos has already said
the pics were removed very soon after his post,
so it is likely that video man is a poster here also.
There were other pictures on the site,
some of which included his use of mirrors and light with
his hands as well as quite normal stuff.

[edit on 30-4-2009 by smurfy]



posted on Apr, 30 2009 @ 11:05 PM
link   

Originally posted by smurfy
reply to post by ImaginaryReality1984
 
Hi Image,
That is my thoughts too,
A high-tech answer is good to explain things,
but this one is in your face,
why take pictures off your site when you put
them there for people to see in the first place?
plus,as Rightuos has already said
the pics were removed very soon after his post,
so it is likely that video man is a poster here also.
There were other pictures on the site,
some of which included his use of mirrors and light with
his hands as well as quite normal stuff.

[edit on 30-4-2009 by smurfy]


Smurfy your points are well made but i wish you'd put them in normal paragraph form. I'm sorry to be critical over such a small thing but it's hard to follow some thing you say sometimes.

My current view is that the guy hung a piece of thin glass, or plastic on the outside of the window frame, shone a light source upon them and then either moved the light source or the glass. A friend could have been involved here to do the movement or hold the camera. These hoaxes now fetch average money in the local rags and even the national rags so it's worth giving it a go for some i'm sure.



posted on May, 1 2009 @ 12:40 AM
link   
reply to post by UKWO1Phot
 


I disagree. In the last still frame just before the lights instantly accelerate the lights all seem brighter than they are earlier on in the video. I posted stills of this in an earlier post. You can compare the light in that last frame with light from earlier frames and it is apparent that the last frame shows the lights slightly brighter. The 2 lights on each side of the glared one in the middle are just as bright as the one in the middle in the last frame (If not brighter). If this light were to pass through a pane of glass, then the glare effect created by the lights would be more consistent.

I'll post these stills again here so you can compare..
STILL 1 (about 10 seconds in)
STILL 2 (3 or 4 frames prior to the object shooting off)
STILL 3 (Last still shot of the lights before they shoot off)

Look at Still 2 first. You can see that these almost appear to be directional lights. What we are seeing doesn't seem so much glare as it does beams of light passing through moisture, perhaps even smog. Still 2 shows the top set of lights sending out a cone of light beams towards the bottom right. The set of lights on the left seems to be sending out a cone of light to the lower left. Very different from what you would expect to see from glare through a pane of glass (up close).

You can compare still 1 to still 3 by clicking on them back and forth. You will notice all these lights in STILL 3 slightly brighter than they are in the other 2 stills. In STILL 3 they also all appear to have the same brightness, yet the glare effect hasn't changed all that much. When you compare all 3 sets of lights you also realize that since they are generally the same brightness the glare effect should be the same for each light. But it is still inconsistent and different for each set. (I'm referring to each point of the triangle a set here as there appears to be 2 lights instead of 1).

We also know that the window was open anyway as has previously been discussed in this thread in the preceding pages.

-ChriS



posted on May, 1 2009 @ 12:44 AM
link   

Originally posted by highlander2008


Not sure if anyone has already posted this? For several reasons I think this is genuine footage of something he was seeing. Whatever it is I have no idea!

Before someone says "reflections"..........the window is wide open, that's very clear in the video.


Definately an Unidentified Flying Object. But too blurry at too great a distance and with camera too shaky to make any argument that it was an alien aircraft.



posted on May, 1 2009 @ 12:59 AM
link   
reply to post by rightuos
 


I'm confused on why you see the movements of the object as proof of a hoax. There DO seem to be some slight movements of what would appear to be a solid object connecting all 3 lights (most notably just prior to the "shooting off" effect as I've previously talked about). I didn't go into as much detail as you did I don't think. The object does appear to to almost be rotating/corkscrewing ever so slightly just before moving in a straight line to the left just before the exact moment it "shoots off". When I watched the video 2 nights ago, I did notice some of these subtle movements and pointed them out in an earlier post. But I didn't (and still don't) notice where the lights quickly dart side to side like you're talking about as being proof of a hoax. At least not sofar as obvious movement and/or light streaks that can't be explained by the imaging equipment in use here (the guy's cellphone).

Can you be more specific as to where in the video this is taking place? Thanks!

-ChriS

[edit on 1-5-2009 by BlasteR]

[edit on 1-5-2009 by BlasteR]



posted on May, 1 2009 @ 01:24 AM
link   

Originally posted by amazing
Definately an Unidentified Flying Object. But too blurry at too great a distance and with camera too shaky to make any argument that it was an alien aircraft.


There wouldn't be any way to determine that anyway.. Even under the most ideal conditions. To me, whether or not this is an alien craft isn't even that important. If this is real, then this is proof of amazing technology regardless of who flies it. The fact that some kind of intelligence would be required to design, construct, and fly such a craft in this fashion would prove that this is either incredible technology in military/government hands or incredible technology owned and operated by ET himself. Either way, the technology would still have to be flown by some kind of intelligence somewhere.

We flew men to the moon in 1969. Skunkworks developed what eventually became the F-117 stealth fighter (actually a light bomber) in 1968/69. Moore's Law would suggest we are generations ahead of where most people really think we are as far as technological advancement. The F-117 is actually child's play. This is one reason we've had Area51 expanding it's facility at Groom Lake, constructing new immense structures/hangars, and just generally expanding its infrastructure dramatically over the last decade. All the photos prove it. Don't just take my word for it. And the Janet Terminal that is this bizarre "ghost terminal" at a small airport out in New Mexico is actually ferrying 2-3 Boeing737-loads of personnel to and from Area51 every single day in unmarked aircraft with the tell-tale red stripe down the center.

I'm hoping that this is in our hands and I would assume it would be if any country has this technology. But I find it hard to believe why Extremely Secret, extremely hush hush American technology would be flown all over the world for all to see (and the UFO phenomenon really is global). Then you have all kinds of other really odd things going on that are complete mysteries. Cattle mutilations.. Not to mention all the varying sizes and shapes of UFO's people have witnessed, photographed, and videotaped all over the world. Even NASA itself. There are so many well-documented cases out there that don't really get the attention the deserve. Not everyone has something to gain from coming forward with their encounters. Alot of times people have alot to lose. I think that gets overlooked alot. There have been MANY documented instances where pilots have witnessed and reported UFO's only to be permanently grounded and/or fired by their employers for no good reason other than they say they saw something amazing. And many times the pilot accounts can be the most amazing because sometimes other sources correllate with the encounter (Radar stations, Air Traffic Controllers, other pilots, and sometimes even witnesses on the ground).

-ChriS



posted on May, 1 2009 @ 06:09 AM
link   
reply to post by smurfy
 


OK, thanks, I was too late to see the photos in the MySpace page.

And thanks for your comments about my previous posts about the video.



posted on May, 1 2009 @ 06:19 AM
link   

Originally posted by BlasteR
Moore's Law would suggest we are generations ahead of where most people really think we are as far as technological advancement.

No, Moore's Law states that transistor density in integrated circuits, which can be considered as a way of measuring performance, doubles every year (or something like this), it's not something that we can apply to every technology, just integrated circuits.

PS: could you answer my U2U, please? Thanks.



posted on May, 1 2009 @ 07:41 AM
link   
I think when you ad in the surrounding evidence (myspace page, sudden missing pictures, etc) it condemns this video.

This is nothing more than a bloke having fun with a cool technique he learned from his "clubbin' days" lol. What does worry me is the 24 pages of discussion concerning this on here, it shows that we are in a sad state of basic understanding, and somewhat to eager to believe....which makes many of us overly gullible.

I can just imagine him pointing this thread out to his friends having a good laugh at some of the outrageous assumptions some are making (and sticking to) after viewing his amateur light show.



posted on May, 1 2009 @ 09:29 AM
link   

Originally posted by IgnoreTheFacts
I think when you ad in the surrounding evidence (myspace page, sudden missing pictures, etc) it condemns this video.

This is nothing more than a bloke having fun with a cool technique he learned from his "clubbin' days" lol. What does worry me is the 24 pages of discussion concerning this on here, it shows that we are in a sad state of basic understanding, and somewhat to eager to believe....which makes many of us overly gullible.

I can just imagine him pointing this thread out to his friends having a good laugh at some of the outrageous assumptions some are making (and sticking to) after viewing his amateur light show.


These debunking sessions serve as a guide line to would be hoaxers as well.

Apart from teaching us all the tell tale signs of a hoax, it also makes it easier to anticipate what debunkers are looking for.

And the hard core believers are too ready to believe.

And then there are the ones that don't see why people would create hoaxes in the first place.

EDIT:

The extraordinary demands extraordinary evidence. Or so I am told.
My own take on this is that The Extraordinary Event nullifies "the benefit of the doubt".


[edit on 1.5.2009 by HolgerTheDane]



posted on May, 1 2009 @ 10:27 AM
link   
I am of the opinion that the video was derived from a poor man’s version of the rig featured here: ( This is a dual camera rig for stereoscopic shooting employing a “beam-splitter” (prism) It would be easy to replace one of the cameras with projector or reflection from hi-gain monitor or LED's.) Pretty elaborate, I present simply as a "proof of concept."

www.studiodaily.com...

Credit where credit is due: Holger the Dane PG 20 :
reply to post by HolgerTheDane
 


zerotensor PG 23
reply to post by zerotensor
 


Just my .02¢

Regards……KK

[edit on 1-5-2009 by kinda kurious]



posted on May, 1 2009 @ 11:30 AM
link   
Look at it this way London has a population of about 11m people in greater London area most people in the UK have moblie phones all can take pics / video or both and out of 11m people NOBODY else seems to have reported this?



posted on May, 1 2009 @ 12:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by IgnoreTheFacts
What does worry me is the 24 pages of discussion concerning this on here, it shows that we are in a sad state of basic understanding, and somewhat to eager to believe....which makes many of us overly gullible.


Just Kurious, what is the appropriate number of pages this thread deserves?



I can just imagine him pointing this thread out to his friends having a good laugh at some of the outrageous assumptions some are making (and sticking to) after viewing his amateur light show.


Is life a zero sum game? Does his fun diminish the amount we should enjoy?

I, for one, am enjoying this. I find it collaborative and enjoy the originality of the theories presented. The diversity of approaches to problem solving. Especially in a (cough) internet discussion forum.

Personally, it doesn't bother me what the prankster does. I try not to allow others to live rent free in my atom-sized brain.

Regards....KK

[edit on 1-5-2009 by kinda kurious]





new topics
top topics
 
72
<< 21  22  23    25  26  27 >>

log in

join