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 releases intelligent moving spheres!! First ever video footage!

page: 52
656
<< 49  50  51    53  54  55 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 8 2009 @ 02:34 PM
link   

Originally posted by TruthxIsxInxThexMist
And i wasn't saying that this video was taken in 2008.... i was saying that the article in the new scientist was wrote in 2008 and it's now a year later where the technology could have improved 50% so please read carefully before bringing an argument forward

That's the price I had to pay for posting while I was almost asleep.


Sorry for my mistake.




posted on Jul, 8 2009 @ 02:38 PM
link   
I'm going to get the frame where all the spheres are lined up after they come out of the object, in photoshop, and see if there actually is some sort of string between them



posted on Jul, 8 2009 @ 02:45 PM
link   
@akkezon



Well on your video it looks like it. But I kinda think a thread with cotton is kinda far fetched as well.


No he certainly didn't mean that it is cotton but that it appears fluffy like cotton. Cotton most certainly wouldn't disintegrate.

Well of course the most important thing remains that the cuts in the clip and the transitions between the frames can't be analysed properly without the raw footage. You have to know what was added by the TV crew to make sure not to blame the videographer.


@nohup



Could it possibly be some kind of substance on a single strand of spider silk, reflecting in the sunlight? Droplets of some kind of yellow fluid, perhaps? Maybe something like this, but with obviously lousy resolution and funky color, and some kind of wind blowing the drops around:


Honestly don't know nohup. Must be something which first has some fluffy and somewhat solid appearance and later on disintegrates.

This is like trying to find out how a magician works. You know there's a trick but you can't put your finger on it.
I'm mean it obviously is some kind of trick when you find a thread snapping back in line with the object, which might be pulled out against a certain friction where they leave the main big object.
???



posted on Jul, 8 2009 @ 02:45 PM
link   
reply to post by tarifa37
 


Forget that video, that video has many cuts and scene changes.

On the original video (up to the point where the guy pointed the camera to his face) you can see that there are no noticeable cuts. At least I haven't seen any.



posted on Jul, 8 2009 @ 02:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by Nohup

Originally posted by necati
My friend whom I asked to take a look at the clip (yes the crappy one) also thinks that it must be something fluffy like cotton attached to a string. Something that possibly disintegrates to some sort of powder. [...]
What do you think?


Could it possibly be some kind of substance on a single strand of spider silk, reflecting in the sunlight? Droplets of some kind of yellow fluid, perhaps? Maybe something like this, but with obviously lousy resolution and funky color, and some kind of wind blowing the drops around:



Or maybe even a spider egg pouch that is releasing tiny spiders that first scurry down the web and then jump off?

Just a possibility. But if there's a possibility of it being something other than an alien UFO, and nobody knows for sure that it was an alien UFO, then nobody can make any claims.


These are merely visual associations and do not necessarily approach a scientifically rigorous study.

Off the cuff associations or speculations are wholly useless for serious consideration. Many other considerations need be incorporated.

ZG



posted on Jul, 8 2009 @ 02:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by yeti101
1. The camerman lies. He says the plane passes then he was able to zoom in on the objects. As tarifa37 points out this is not what the video shows. After the plane passes it cuts to a new peice of sky it does not zoom in,he's just tried hard to make it look that way.
Watch the original video, not that edited version.

The original video starts with the aeroplane and ends with the guy pointing the camera to his face and telling that there were some UFOs behind him.


2. Strange behaviour doing a peice to camera in the middle of a sighting. How many genuine ufos are captured on film? and this guy takes them out his view finder...riiiight...
He didn't, see above and watch the original video.


3. Hes filmed from a built up area in the middle of the day yet we dont have 1 other photo/video or witness to this event...riiiight... considering the phoenix lights had 10,000 witnesses we should have thousands for this too.
That is true, if that place is where I think it was near a large shopping mall, and the objects were above a more central area of Mexico City.


4. the video ends abruptly we dont see it to its conclusion. Why not?
See above and watch the original video.



posted on Jul, 8 2009 @ 02:52 PM
link   
The clip I uploaded seems to be deleted.
Could anybody let me know in how far video from Youtube may be altered and if it is allowed to upload snippets?

I think links to file hosters are a no-no aren't they?! Have to take a look into rules section here.

[edit on 8-7-2009 by necati]



posted on Jul, 8 2009 @ 03:00 PM
link   
Early stage of spheres exiting object:
i978.photobucket.com...

After 2 seconds:
i978.photobucket.com...
i978.photobucket.com...
i978.photobucket.com...

I applied multiple filters and image adjustments to the entire image, so if there was any kind of string between the spheres, it would have been highlighted. So as you can see, there isn't any connecting string between the objects, which puts at least one explanation to rest.

[edit on 7/8/2009 by bl4ke360]



posted on Jul, 8 2009 @ 03:04 PM
link   
reply to post by bl4ke360
 


You can't seriously hope to find a thin thread among those compression artefacts. It's the way they move and at one point literally snap back in line to form a proper row of ......who knows what.



posted on Jul, 8 2009 @ 03:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by necati
reply to post by bl4ke360
 


You can't seriously hope to find a thin thread among those compression artefacts. It's the way they move and at one point literally snap back in line to form a proper row of ......who knows what.


Well the thing is, I zoomed in so far in the original footage and did not find one pixel between the spheres, any other color than the sky. So if there is a string, his camera did not pick it up.



posted on Jul, 8 2009 @ 03:12 PM
link   
reply to post by bl4ke360
 


Original footage? Now I'm curious. Or do you mean the Youtube file? Either way the resolution of most cameras wouldn't allow a silk thread to show from a distance of let's say 1m or so. I don't know if you even could see it on HD.

I'm honestly not familiar with the capabilities of cameras.



[edit on 8-7-2009 by necati]



posted on Jul, 8 2009 @ 03:16 PM
link   
reply to post by necati
 


I meant the original footage of the youtube video, un-edited by photoshop.



posted on Jul, 8 2009 @ 03:20 PM
link   
reply to post by bl4ke360
 


then you're analyzing something that has been compressed god knows how many times and edited heavily, all that BEFORE getting the big youtube compression kiss of death.

there are so many artifacts and so many edits that you are wasting your time - you can't get anything truly conclusive out of that.



posted on Jul, 8 2009 @ 03:22 PM
link   
reply to post by ArMaP
 


well thanks i didnt know of the other version.

but problem number #3 is the main one. The only conclusion i can draw is that those objects were not in the sky above the city that day. Therefor it is a hoax.



posted on Jul, 8 2009 @ 03:26 PM
link   
reply to post by JScytale
 



Yes, that's why I give up (for now

The video has been deleted and can't cause any harm no more. Will try to find out tomorrow what I've done wrong. Who knows perhaps someone provides us with the raw data


[edit on 8-7-2009 by necati]



posted on Jul, 8 2009 @ 03:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by tonyz

>this particular tech simply can't be responsible for
>what we are seeing here because of how it functions.

You have no idea how the device is implemented.
The objects yellow glow is under volumetric (i.e. tuning) control.

Look at this:
www.youtube.com...

Light Dimmer:
www.youtube.com...

---------------------


both your examples are sealed. you're talking about a tech that uses a laser to ionize a pocket of air (a very brief little bubble of plasma) followed by another pulse almost immediately after detonating it. plasma isnt going to just sit around in open air because it is simply ionized gas - its not going to stay consistent.



posted on Jul, 8 2009 @ 03:28 PM
link   
reply to post by yeti101
 


You are just unable to be nice are ya?
You must be a teenager.



posted on Jul, 8 2009 @ 03:33 PM
link   

Originally posted by Akezzon
You seem to assume to much.
Why would I say that if it was the other way around?
You sceptics put your trust into our logic and common sense.
Well, I just used common sense. Do you disagree that a light would be easier to spot on a dark sky than a blue daylight sky?

The phoenix lights were not just a few lights up in the sky, it also involved people seeing a huge..ish V-shaped object glide on a fairly low altitude. So yeah, I think you shouldn't compare this video with the Phoenix lights. And try to skip the name calling.

This is still a discussion and not a "Win the argument" competition.
But I guess my LOL to you got you all fired up..


what are you talking about?!?
daylight sighting are so, so much easier to spot and they happen when everyone is awake and outside. hell, my own experience was a daylight sighting - there is simply no way you could have missed this object if you were looking in its general direction period - you didn't have to be looking up at the sky for it to catch your attention. daylight sightings arent ambiguous lights that 99% of people will dismiss as aircraft. daylight sightings are something that very obviously doesn't belong sitting right there in the sky.

a daylight sighting, ESPECIALLY one over mexico city (not only the largest city in the western hemisphere, but culturally very open to the esoteric and unexplained) would have a whole lot more than one witness. now, i don't live in mexico city - i don't know if this really happened and a lot of people saw it - but the impression right now is one man with a camera filmed it in broad daylight by a busy street at a bus stop and didn't even mention it to anyone else at the bus stop, nor did more reports come in.

[edit on 8-7-2009 by JScytale]



posted on Jul, 8 2009 @ 03:59 PM
link   
reply to post by JScytale
 


We still don't know how far up these objects were and at what magnification level the camera was set to, Pedro also mentioned smoke/clouds which could of affected the visibility. As I mentioned before to the casual viewer these objects may have looked like balloons if they were at a high altitude.



[edit on 8-7-2009 by avat178]



posted on Jul, 8 2009 @ 05:30 PM
link   
reply to post by JScytale
 


DAZZLING MID-AIR EXPLOSIONS

DYNAMIC PULSE DETONATION

BALLS OF PLASMA

SHOCKWAVES

BRIGHT FLASH

PROGRAMMED PATTERN OF RAPID PLASMA EVENTS

WALL OF BRIGHT LIGHTS


[edit on 8-7-2009 by TruthxIsxInxThexMist]



new topics

top topics



 
656
<< 49  50  51    53  54  55 >>

log in

join