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 Video London

page: 9
72
<< 6  7  8    10  11  12 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 28 2009 @ 11:09 AM
link   

Originally posted by stealthyone


If it was someone reflecting a light onto a pane of glass between the camera and the window, then I would expect that the lights would be perfectly parallel. If you have an object that is coming closer to you as it moves, you are going to see that the lines are not parallel, they would separate as the object gets closer to you, or closer together if they are moving away from you. In my opinion, the fact that they are not 100% parallel only adds to the authenticity of the video.




I'm of the opinion that its a reflection
I take it you're assuming the camera guy is standing exactly 90 degree to the glass and not at a slight angle or anything




posted on Apr, 28 2009 @ 11:11 AM
link   
Just thought I'd throw this idea out there too, when the lights take off, as we can see here:


Shouldn't it look more like this?



I've just flipped the image 180 degrees.

If the point of light is moving then the trail should be behind it right?

Or is this just a camera effect?



posted on Apr, 28 2009 @ 11:18 AM
link   
reply to post by Chadwickus
 


It would be a camera effect due to the refresh rate. The bright lights would lag for a second and remain bright where the rest of it would cause sort of a motion trail. That's the reason for the tracers. As you can see it makes sort of a dotted line. That is to be expected from a cell phone camera. So far this is the most exciting of any of the videos I have seen. It really does add up to be real. Not to mention how easy it was for one of our members to get the original file (hoaxers never do this because it's too easy to identify it as such). Add that to the fact that this guy's youtube page (which would definitely show what he is interested in) had nothing with UFO's on it other than his own footage (was just music stuff). I think that ads to his credibility (that he is not involved in the great smoking gun debate). Besides of all the videos we have seen at least one has to be real right? I think this one has the best chance. Just my opinion though.

[edit on 28-4-2009 by DaMod]



posted on Apr, 28 2009 @ 11:21 AM
link   
reply to post by Chadwickus
 


Wow thats probably oneof the most contributable ideas to this thread, indead the lights disperse upward and begin to fade as they do. My few explenations are either the lights are dimming as they head upward, it may also contribute the original idea of it being a reflection of some sort. But even it was a reflection you should still expect the most lit area to be at the head of the ray. Maybe since the lights dissapear so quickly the camera didn't acquire enough frames to accurately portray the light as it would be seen by the naked eye.

I don't have much of an explenation for the above post, good thinking sir! star



posted on Apr, 28 2009 @ 11:25 AM
link   
reply to post by Chadwickus
 


Very good observation. Maybe it has to do with what kind of camera is on his phone? Even if it was a reflection, it would still use the same streaks. Can someone recreate the same thing with some software on their computer?



posted on Apr, 28 2009 @ 11:29 AM
link   
reply to post by TravisT
 


There is only one problem with that. Not everyone has knowledge of cgi. So even if you could create the same effect there is no way of knowing whether this person knows how to create cgi or not. I know I don't... I look forward to seeing some of the recreations though.



posted on Apr, 28 2009 @ 11:42 AM
link   
reply to post by Chadwickus
 


This was brought up previously.

It makes sense from an exposure point of view.

With the lights sitting in one spot they are going to expose the associated pixels for a lengthy period of time making them register brighter. As the object accelerates the lights spend less and less time exposing the associated pixels so they will register dimmer and dimmer as the object speeds up.

So yes, the video makes sense and is technically consistent in this regard.

With the camera maximizing exposure time due to the low light conditions this effect is pronounced.



posted on Apr, 28 2009 @ 11:44 AM
link   
The lights would also be dimming if the object was accelerating away, as at each point in the 'frame' the object existed for a smaller amount of time. This may actually support the video as real also.



posted on Apr, 28 2009 @ 11:45 AM
link   
reply to post by rjmelter
 


Could you expand a bit on your theory about the infra red light sensitivity of the camera and how it should effect the visibility of the object differently? I'm not understanding your explanation exactly.



posted on Apr, 28 2009 @ 11:47 AM
link   
Couple things on the "for" front.
The lights are pulsing and on the end of the two lower streams only the right hand pulse has fired on the screen grab.

There is also a slight arc in the travel + the left hand stream isn't as perfect as the other 2. Basically, it's not "good" enough to be CGI.

There is also some perspective...but there is something wrong with it and this is where it gets interesting.

The perspective of the steams seems OK, however there doesn't appear to be any perspective between the lights, as if you were looking at a flat plane equilateral triangle. Well 2 with one slightly offset but I'll stay with one for explanation. A 3D triangle (say the base of a craft ) would be offset to some extent due to perspective.

The triangle does get bigger and slips to the horizontal at the stream ends denoting perspective (coming towards the viewer), however the triangle stays equilateral.

So, flat object, moving slightly towards the viewer whilst moving up.

...a kite with lights or 2 visible dimensions of a multidimensional object moving in 3D space?



posted on Apr, 28 2009 @ 11:50 AM
link   
reply to post by trilateral_insignia
 



If this is a reflection of a ground based object I'm having trouble with the Approx 380hz modulation of the lights.




If you look at the single frame where the object is departing, the 3 light sources can be seen modulating (on and off). Based on the estimated frame rate of a video phone is roughly 12 to 15 frames per second and based on the 27 to 30 modulated 'flashes' in the one frame that show a near linear acceleration based on the angular positions of each modulated flash...This of course assumes a level altitude of flight when leaving. The average time between flashes then is about .00264 seconds or estimated modulated frequency of 380 Hz ( Cycles per second ).






I was just about to relate a trick I use for image analysys of this type. If the lights were a reflection of a ground based light then the modulation would be 50/100 hz or 60/120 hz depending on what part of the world you are in. However, aircraft power supplies (including most military) run at 400 hz. So if the lights are from a man made craft and they are modulating you would expect to see them doing so at 400 or 800 hz. Your estimation of 380 hz is right in there! So maybe this is advance military.


Any ideas?

[edit on 28-4-2009 by dainoyfb]



posted on Apr, 28 2009 @ 12:07 PM
link   
reply to post by dainoyfb
 


It could be advanced military. Maybe it's something else.



posted on Apr, 28 2009 @ 12:13 PM
link   
I remain undecided.

Thus far, I will leave the analysis up to you folks. You are all doing a fine job.

The last time I jumped to a conclusion, I had the egg on my face for breakfast for a week.

Here is another frame grab at approx :04 in. There appears to be 2 distinct reflections on the window frame. The big one resembles a flourescent tube type lamp perhaps. Or a light reflected from outside. (Streetlamp?)


I am beginning to think the footage might not be a continuous clip ( despite audio / easy to replace) My hunch is there are edits or perhaps camera was "paused" during recording. Not sure yet.

Regards...KK

[edit on 28-4-2009 by kinda kurious]



posted on Apr, 28 2009 @ 12:17 PM
link   
Why people think any military would fly their advanced, secret aircraft in the middle of town baffles me. There is a reason they create places like Area 51. So that prying eyes can't see what we are developing. Aside from the safety concerns of flying experimental craft around cities, the sheer stupidity of exposing it to the public goes beyond ludicrous. I've never quite understood the theories about flying secret military craft around busy cities.

Reflection: I think that's a ridiculous theory. Glass reflect light. There is a bright street light outside, which is quite visible on the left pane. Why wouldn't that be reflected in the glass? It would. It is not. If you could see LED or other lights on the supposed glass, you'd certainly see reflections of the house across the street, sky, street light, on that glass as well. If you look at the glass pane on the left, you can see all these things. Unless he is using some magical glass with properties I'm not aware of, I don't think any theory about it being a reflection is feasible.

CGI: To the person who said basically lolCGI (why are so many debunkers so amused? Curious reaction..). Why do you think it's CGI? I hear "CGI" quite a bit, but I'd like to know the telltale signs of CGI that makes you think this is the case. I mean, other than your opinion that it has to be explainable by conventional means, so when all other ideas fail to produce results, you slip to the ol' "Clearly CGI!" theory. What about the lights or video in general make you believe this is CGI?

As for video manipulation, if the original file was examined, could you tell? Someone said the original was obtained. Has it been checked to see if it was manipulated in any way?



posted on Apr, 28 2009 @ 12:27 PM
link   
reply to post by fleabit
 


So if they are never going to use new craft outside of Area 51, why would they build them? They have to use them for operations sometime and we can't determine why they would or wouldn't do an operation in this particular spot. Just like we can't determine their motivation for flying Air force 1 around downtown Manhattan.

I'm not supporting this as real or a hoax yet but assuming that the PTB will never use new technology off base for an operation seems a little extreme.



posted on Apr, 28 2009 @ 12:44 PM
link   
He has been quite happy to pass on the original 3gp file from the phone via YouTube messages. I have a copy but he has not got back to me if it is ok for me to pass it on. if he gives permission I will.



posted on Apr, 28 2009 @ 01:03 PM
link   
Im pretty sure thats the first green ufos ive seen on my times on this site or the tube but this did look genuine to me because of the flying off part. The 2 orbs arent uncommon unlike the new diamond which not one doesnt look photoshopped but this good video



posted on Apr, 28 2009 @ 01:03 PM
link   
Im pretty sure thats the first green ufos ive seen on my times on this site or the tube but this did look genuine to me because of the flying off part. The 2 orbs arent uncommon unlike the new diamond which not one doesnt look photoshopped but this good video



posted on Apr, 28 2009 @ 01:03 PM
link   
Im pretty sure thats the first green ufos ive seen on my times on this site or the tube but this did look genuine to me because of the flying off part. The 2 orbs arent uncommon unlike the new diamond which not one doesnt look photoshopped but this good video



posted on Apr, 28 2009 @ 01:04 PM
link   
Im pretty sure thats the first green ufos ive seen on my times on this site or the tube but this did look genuine to me because of the flying off part. The 2 orbs arent uncommon unlike the new diamond which not one doesnt look photoshopped but this good video




top topics



 
72
<< 6  7  8    10  11  12 >>

log in

join