UFO Video London

page: 26
72
<< 23  24  25    27 >>

log in

join

posted on May, 2 2009 @ 12:01 PM
link   
reply to post by highlander2008
 


His word isn't enough, such an event like the one he described should have multiple witnesses.

I asked that way back on page 7:
www.abovetopsecret.com...

There is still no corroborating witnesses.




posted on May, 2 2009 @ 12:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by Chadwickus
reply to post by highlander2008
 


His word isn't enough, such an event like the one he described should have multiple witnesses.

I asked that way back on page 7:
www.abovetopsecret.com...

There is/are still no corroborating witnesses.


How many people saw Oswald shoot JFK?

Just because it's a populated area doesn't mean there are people out on the street at 4-5am looking at the sky... (He filmed it for 30 seconds)

Also there could be witnesses that just haven't come forward, and will never be found unless there is a press appeal, or they are on a forum this has been posted on.

One possibility is... Over the road in the house someone closes the left hand curtain. Find their address and ask if they saw the guy over the road hanging glass from his _.



posted on May, 2 2009 @ 02:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by highlander2008
***snip***

They were moving about slowly anyway, he said this (see above). They were NOT stationary. Can you eliminate this, I think not. Remove the Hoax label for a while yet.


You COULD be right had it not been for the fact that the movement of the camery coincides every time with the movement of the object.

Load it into any video editing suite and check for yourself.

Or is your sole purpose here to try and keep this dying fisk alive?

EDIT:
Gramatic edit

and this addition about recreating it.

I was going to recreate it and was part way through when I realized that if I didn't get each and every details the same as iriginal post, it would be dismissed as not close enough.
In other words - a lot of work to tweak the setup with no gain.



[edit on 2.5.2009 by HolgerTheDane]



posted on May, 2 2009 @ 02:31 PM
link   
My thing wasn't to say this was 100% genuine, but trying to figure out how it was done, if indeed, it was a hoax. Yes, at first I thought it looked real to me, and it still looks pretty damn good, but I knew there were ways of hoaxing it. I just want to figure out exactly how it was done. If it was a reflection, then how exactly did he do it? If it was CGI, then how was it produced? If it was just layered, then again, how was it produced? We keep giving off ideas, which is GREAT, but we still haven't come to a sound conclusion as to how it was done.

I was just taken back by giving my thoughts on areas I'm familiar with, and it getting shot down IMMEDIATELY by some members who have little to no experience, as to what I was presenting. Does it mean what I said was totally 100% accurate? No, nothing ever is, but the lack of consideration to get to the bottom of this was lost in "who knows what better then the other", and that was really getting to me. I'm just shocked by how many members here love to hear the gavel before hearing the jury.



posted on May, 2 2009 @ 02:54 PM
link   
reply to post by TravisT
 
There is another thing to take into account,
If video mans house is the same the one's across the street
then it has Bow windows,whose windows have much shallower angles
than a Bay,so it should be much easier to see an adjoining open widow
frame than the sharper angles of a bay window,
food for thought ,but not for me, I'm knackered with this thread!



posted on May, 2 2009 @ 02:58 PM
link   
I agree (TravisT).. So I didn't bother taking any more reference images myself..

Recent comments from Dan.



Still waiting for someone to tell me how they think this could be hoaxed! I can't see for the life of me how anybody, without special fx could be able to do this. In less than 5 minutes too? And for god sake dont just say the words reflection in glass in window with leds. If i hear that one more time!!!




my bay windows are like a semi-circle. i was looking out of the left end window which when opened like in the vid looking ten o'clock the reflections on the window 'are' from down the street and/or across the road.


I liked the way people who didn't add anything to the discussion in the first 15 pages suddenly came on knowing exactly how it was done.


By the way KK.. The pie was served cold..


[edit on 2/5/2009 by UKWO1Phot]



posted on May, 2 2009 @ 03:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by easynow
reply to post by highlander2008
 



imo it has been successfully confirmed a HOAX !

you defending this to the bitter end is certainly suspicious ?






[edit on 2-5-2009 by easynow]


Suspicious..........of what? If you search my other threads you will find that I have been a very successful "debunker" in the past. I managed to replicate perfectly the effect causing the many ufo "laser" videos going around and debunk the whole lot of them in one go! Despite relentess attacks on the thread claiming I was actually faking my own experiment!

I'd be the last person to push something I thought was LEDs on a glass pane!!



[edit on 2-5-2009 by highlander2008]



posted on May, 2 2009 @ 05:03 PM
link   

Originally posted by TravisT
My thing wasn't to say this was 100% genuine, but trying to figure out how it was done, if indeed, it was a hoax. Yes, at first I thought it looked real to me, and it still looks pretty damn good, but I knew there were ways of hoaxing it. I just want to figure out exactly how it was done. If it was a reflection, then how exactly did he do it? If it was CGI, then how was it produced? If it was just layered, then again, how was it produced? We keep giving off ideas, which is GREAT, but we still haven't come to a sound conclusion as to how it was done.


There is no way we can say that "this is how it exactly was done". What we can do is analyse the video and from small clues decide how it could be done.

I don't think it is CGI. Reason for this is that it would be difficult for a non-professional to replicate the sudden changes in angle, zoom, speed etc. without it being picked up relatively easy.

This leaves two possibilities. Genuine or Hoax.
Small imperfections such as object movement relative to frame and chimney, the weird triangle which would suggest a craft on it's side and other tell tale signs strongly suggests it is a Hoax.

Which leaves us with HOW IS IT DONE.

Many posts have suggested reflections in glass because the objects are consistent with this method.

Some have ventured into the realm of a sheet of glass mounted outside the window frame. This is unlikely for a number of reasons.

And that leads us to the only logical solution. A small piece of glass held in front of the camera at an angle to provide a split view forward as well as sideways or down.

I have read all the pleas for a proof of concenpt and here it is.


(click to open player in new window)


In the video I have used a piece of glass from one of my pictures. It is 20cm by 25cm and does not weigh anywhere near 50 pounds.

The blinking led light is from my Jet Direct Printer Switch placed on the floor. The glass is handheld and I use movement of the glass to make the dot move in the video. I could have mounted the glass and moved the Printer Switch instead. Even jerked it away at the right moment to simulate a UFO flying of.

I took the glass out of the frame and never even bothered to clean the dust, cobwebs and fingerprints of it.

Secret to this working is that it is dark in the room I'm sitting in with the camera and glass sheet.



Imagine what I could do if I decided to add movement and grainyness to the video instead of making it in HD.





I was just taken back by giving my thoughts on areas I'm familiar with, and it getting shot down IMMEDIATELY by some members who have little to no experience, as to what I was presenting. Does it mean what I said was totally 100% accurate? No, nothing ever is, but the lack of consideration to get to the bottom of this was lost in "who knows what better then the other", and that was really getting to me. I'm just shocked by how many members here love to hear the gavel before hearing the jury.


I'm sorry if you feel I'm one of those people. It's just that I get very involved and perhaps irritated when people don't see the glaringly obvious. Forgetting of course that we all have different life experience to draw from.



posted on May, 2 2009 @ 05:33 PM
link   
reply to post by kinda kurious
 
I must agree with you, KK.
It's for this type of interesting & more "technical" thread that I joined ATS. I see no problem with a few more pages of this. In fact, I'll almost be sad to see it end, which I think it now will due to the excellent work of HolgerTheDane.



posted on May, 2 2009 @ 05:33 PM
link   

Originally posted by HolgerTheDaneSome have ventured into the realm of a sheet of glass mounted outside the window frame. This is unlikely for a number of reasons.
And this is what I was advocating against the entire time. I never said it wasn't glass, per se, but that it wasn't being reflected from an outside mounted piece of glass, for reasons I have stated already.

Now, i will admit to not thinking it was a reflection, but only because of theories that were presented at the time. Your video did more then an amazing job showing us how to do this camera trick.



In the video I have used a piece of glass from one of my pictures. It is 20cm by 25cm and does not weigh anywhere near 50 pounds.
My point wasn't for a piece of glass right in front of the camera, but one that was suspended right outside the window itself.


I'm sorry if you feel I'm one of those people. It's just that I get very involved and perhaps irritated when people don't see the glaringly obvious. Forgetting of course that we all have different life experience to draw from.
Well, with all due respect, nobody presented, IMO, a reasonably, accurate, description of what was going on. All theories were pointing to glass being suspended outside the window, which if it was, would need an extremely huge piece of glass, that would weigh a TON.

You shouldn't be sorry at all, as this is EXACTLY what I was asking for to begin with. I wanted someone to show me how it was done, and you did more then a fine job accomplishing that, good sir.



posted on May, 2 2009 @ 06:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by Chadwickus
reply to post by highlander2008
 


His word isn't enough, such an event like the one he described should have multiple witnesses.

I asked that way back on page 7:
www.abovetopsecret.com...

There is still no corroborating witnesses.


I didn't ask it as far back as yourself but it's also something i asked. I mean the guy is in London (unless i read that wrong). In London, even at 4am there are people walking about, driving, working etc. There would be other witnesses and if he can't find any that he doesn't know personally it says an awful lot.

Ladies and gentlemen, consider what we have here. A picture on his MySpace page that shows similar effects from a green LED being photographed, that picture was taken down when someone posted it here. They saved it because they were smart enough to realise he might destroy it. So why would he take it down? Please answer that.

Then we have the lack of cooborating witnesses. Sorry but this should now stop on ATS. We are supposed to be one of the key places on the net to sniff out hoaxes and going on this long is just silly.



posted on May, 2 2009 @ 11:55 PM
link   
The London vid inspired me.

www.youtube.com...



posted on May, 3 2009 @ 01:40 AM
link   

Originally posted by ArMaP

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.


Actually it is a little more interesting, IMO. But I wasn't just referring to what Moore's law directly states but what it "suggests" based on exponential growth and how Moore's law is not just indicative of numbers of transistors on integrated circuits.

Moore's Law

Almost every measure of the capabilities of digital electronic devices is strongly linked to Moore's law: processing speed, memory capacity, even the number and size of pixels in digital cameras. All of these are improving at (roughly) exponential rates as well. This has dramatically increased the usefulness of digital electronics in nearly every segment of the world economy. Moore's law describes this driving force of technological and social change in the late 20th and early 21st centuries.


There are other similar laws and formulations which all generally follow the same exponential growth pattern as the number of transistors we can fit on integrated circuits.

- Transistors per integrated circuit
- Density at minimum cost per transistor
- Cost per transistor
- Computing performance per unit cost
- Power consumption
- Hard disk storage cost per unit of information
- RAM storage capacity
- Network capacity
- Pixels per dollar

Moore's First Law (In a nutshell):
The total number of transistors, per square-inch, on an integrated circuit grows exponentially over time (approximately doubling every 24 months).

Moore's Second Law (In a nutshell):
Overall net efficiency of any electronic system grows exponentially over time (approximately doubling every 24 months).

The interesting part in all this (how this ties in to UFO's in general) is the theories related to whether or not Moore's Law will continue. Most believe it can never sustain itself and that we will eventually reach a point where it levels out due to various different factors. Mainly that we will reach a point where it isn't technologically possible anymore to put any more transistors on an integrated circuit due to miniaturization limits of transistors at the atomic level (as Moore talked in an interview).

But there is also alot we do not understand about the universe. Perhaps instead of building transistors at the atomic level, we will build transistor factories at the atomic level capable of constructing subatomic transistors. There are alot of possibilities here that would project the limitations and leveling-out of Moore's law much farther into the future than most people think.

Another important question to ask is:
"What happens when Moore's law continues to grow exponentially without being hindered by atomic/subatomic limitations of transistors"?

Perhaps it means that, eventually, we will all be immortal cyborgs capable of traveling to other solar systems and back in one lifetime.. Or that we would be capable of building computers with unimaginable AI that are exponentially more intelligent than human beings. Perhaps it will reach a point that everything from human implants to spacecraft and time machines will be researched and designed in the blink of an eye by quantum super-computers. There is alot that we don't understand here.. And there is also alot of room for interpretation and theories of what will actually happen.

My larger point is that when you consider all this, Intelligent civilizations halfway across the universe being capable of building spacecraft (UFO's) that can travel to earth isn't so far fetched. And what we DO know about integrated circuits with relation to Moore's Law is only applicable to what is documented and public knowledge. It does not account for technologies and computers that have been developed in total secrecy. For all we know the exponentiality principle of Moore's law is twice what we really think it is right now. There just isn't any way to know. And when you consider that possibility, it isn't so far fetched that we might have developed UFO's/spacecraft with these capabilities either.

-ChriS

[edit on 3-5-2009 by BlasteR]



posted on May, 3 2009 @ 04:40 AM
link   
Just had to show you this extra piece of video.

It is my original 29 fps HD video submitted to a few extra effects and made into a "camera phone" video at 15 fps.

It took all of five-six minutes to do.

Note that we now have focus change, focus blur and tracking of object.

Really tell tale sign of Hoax is of course that the camera movement seems to anticipate object direction change. That's another one to look out for.


(click to open player in new window)



BTW.
Thank you ArMaP



posted on May, 3 2009 @ 09:01 AM
link   
I do not see a UFO in the clip, I see some lights arranged in a triangular manner, could be anything really. Not at all convincing.



posted on May, 3 2009 @ 10:44 PM
link   
I have seen nor heard anything from any debunkers that is solid.

The lights in the vid have a foreshortening to them that seems to match well with the supposed distance from camera.

Also given the camera and it's zoom function, I would think a much larger difference would be apparent in the size of the lights if it were a reflection. Meaning since the reflection would be much closer to the camera, they would be majorly blurred and much larger upon zoom. Instead, they stay relevant in size to the building.

keep trying to debunk though as I always look for an answer but for me none has been given.

b



posted on May, 4 2009 @ 12:25 AM
link   
reply to post by Bspiracy
 



The zoom function on his camera is digital. In this case zoom is accomplished by real time cropping of the image, not by mechanically changing the optical properties of the lens. Because of this, depth of focus does not change hence, close for ground objects will stay in focus if they are already within the field of focus.



posted on May, 4 2009 @ 09:44 AM
link   

Originally posted by UKWO1Phot
How many people saw Oswald shoot JFK?

If Oswald had been floating around like a lighthouse in the sky, it probably would have been quite a few...

[edit on 4-5-2009 by Verklagekasper]



posted on May, 4 2009 @ 10:28 AM
link   

Originally posted by UKWO1Phot
How many people saw Oswald shoot JFK?


So you assume Oswald shot JFK?

Perhaps the correct answer would be zero, if he didn't shoot him.

Oh well, another thread I suppose.

Just in case, I'll pre-heat the oven and get my oven mitts out.


Regards....KK

Back On Topic:

I might lend more credence to the video if there was a single other witness or a shred of corroboration.

Nontheless, I am satisfied it was achieved by similar method demonstrated by HolgertheDane until convinced otherwise.

KK


[edit on 4-5-2009 by kinda kurious]



posted on May, 4 2009 @ 11:24 AM
link   
That's a good video. I can't believe how fast this thread has blown up, incredible. When I first looked at it there were only a few posts. When I looked at it today I thought it was an old thread that someone had brought back to life.





new topics
top topics
 
72
<< 23  24  25    27 >>

log in

join