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: 65
656
<< 62  63  64    66  67  68 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 16 2009 @ 04:04 AM
link   

Originally posted by ufopunx
I don't know if someone think about that before as I didn't read the 60+ pages but does anybody else think that it could be someone juggling with some balls?

You're sorta right and sorta wrong. They look more like helium-filled balloons than balls and the juggling is likely not being done by a person but by air turbulence.

Maybe you should go back and read the 60 pages to get up to speed?




posted on Jul, 16 2009 @ 04:14 AM
link   
reply to post by Arbitrageur
 


Have you seen the astrojax video that I just posted? It shows a better views of what I'm trying to explain, some movement are very close to those done by the objects in the video.

I really don't want to read the 60+pages, if this was mentioned before and totally discredited as an explanation then sorry, if not I think it is way to explore, I just want to find what this really is and I sure want this to be an unknown intelligent life form but for claiming that is a UFO we have to be sure it is really what we think it is.



posted on Jul, 16 2009 @ 04:39 AM
link   
So does nobody think it strange that the second witness to the 'event' is a 'friend' of Haimie Maussan? Not strange that his video is being kept under wraps? That Mr Carrillo doesn't know the difference between Venus and a metal sphere?

WG3



posted on Jul, 16 2009 @ 06:55 AM
link   

Originally posted by Arbitrageur

Originally posted by ufopunx
I don't know if someone think about that before as I didn't read the 60+ pages but does anybody else think that it could be someone juggling with some balls?

You're sorta right and sorta wrong. They look more like helium-filled balloons than balls and the juggling is likely not being done by a person but by air turbulence.

Maybe you should go back and read the 60 pages to get up to speed?
Isn't that a bit harsh? That's like someone going into church for the first time, and saying they know nothing of the Bible, and someone turns to them and goes, "ummmm, we're in a sermon right now. Why don't you just read the whole Bible to get up to speed, and then come talk to me".


Sorry, bro. If I knew your answer I would help, but I haven't even read this entire thread, and don't feel like it either. I had to stop after nobody was questioning anything, and TON of flirting was going on by the members here.



posted on Jul, 16 2009 @ 03:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by waveguide3
So does nobody think it strange that the second witness to the 'event' is a 'friend' of Haimie Maussan? Not strange that his video is being kept under wraps?

WG3


Hi there,

Thanks for your research.


I find this information interesting to say the least.



++
Europa aka Buckwild



posted on Jul, 16 2009 @ 04:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by waveguide3
So does nobody think it strange that the second witness to the 'event' is a 'friend' of Haimie Maussan? Not strange that his video is being kept under wraps? That Mr Carrillo doesn't know the difference between Venus and a metal sphere?

WG3



'Friend' as in a 'youtube' friend or a 'personal' friend?





[edit on 16-7-2009 by avat178]



posted on Jul, 20 2009 @ 12:44 AM
link   
The extreme and continual extreme sightings and EBE encouters in Mexico is actually kinda of scary. But I feel Mex not having nukes or debilitating radar may be one of the reasons their-there? Big Time.

Decoy



posted on Jul, 20 2009 @ 04:21 AM
link   

Originally posted by avat178
'Friend' as in a 'youtube' friend or a 'personal' friend?


As in YouTube, but consider the dates and what's happened.

The OP video by Hernandez appears on YouTube on 5 July 2009.

Haimie Maussen posts several excerpts from his tv shows on YouTube. These contain the Hernandez video.

The ATS debarcle started on 5 July 2009.
On 14 July 2009, Mr Carrillo (unknown to Mr Hernandez or Mr Maussan we assume) registers on YouTube. He uploads an unconvincing video he made on 16 October 2008 showing a 'metal sphere' hovering over Mexico City - an object that can be proved beyond reasonable doubt to be Venus. As well as posting this, he talks about another video he made. This was much more recently on 22 May 2009, the day of the Hernandez event. This is described in some detail and is clearly a great capture for Mr Carrillo. So why only upload a rather poor 8 month old recording of Venus?

Anyway, he doesn't upload this much more interesting video yet Haimie Maussan registers on Mr Carrillo's channel as a 'friend'. I guess Haimie must be more impressed then me over the 'metal sphere' video.

But wait, a day earlier, on 13 July Mr Carrillo is announced on ATS as a second witness to the Hernandez event. Stills from his video are released under strict copyright notice. And I guess Mr Maussan would be well up to speed by now, ensuring that no raw images from that video see the light of day, less so to ATS scrutiny.

All coincidental? Maybe, but it makes anybody with an inquisitive mind think that something's not quite right.

WG3




[edit on 20-7-2009 by waveguide3]

[edit on 20-7-2009 by waveguide3]



posted on Jul, 20 2009 @ 04:25 AM
link   

Originally posted by Decoy
But I feel Mex not having nukes or debilitating radar may be one of the reasons their-there? Big Time.


Hmm... I thought it was the nukes and electronic hardware that attracted them. 'Is there a base nearby?' is often the first question asked when a UFO report comes in.

WG3



posted on Jul, 21 2009 @ 09:27 PM
link   
here is the other video where Maussan is wearing the blue tie. this is the best version of that episode, that has been presented in this thread so far and it looks like he uploaded it on youtube a few hours ago.





posted on Jul, 21 2009 @ 11:56 PM
link   
reply to post by easynow
 

Thanks Easynow, good find, this one is clearer!

Check out time index 2:37-2:50, the yellow thing looks something like a big plastic sack fluttering in the wind, except tied to a string at some part of it (usually the left side looks like it's anchored to a string, the right part is fluttering though it rotates).



posted on Jul, 22 2009 @ 04:09 AM
link   

Originally posted by Arbitrageur
reply to post by easynow
 

Thanks Easynow, good find, this one is clearer!

Check out time index 2:37-2:50, the yellow thing looks something like a big plastic sack fluttering in the wind, except tied to a string at some part of it (usually the left side looks like it's anchored to a string, the right part is fluttering though it rotates).



The clearer the video & the more I watch it, the less I can see anything that suggests anything intelligent (extraterrestrials) or exotic (plasma "critters").

I am leaning more & more towards something that is man made being subjected to the extreme buffeting resulting from the slipstream of that aircraft. My second option is CGI.

[edit on 22-7-2009 by Sam60]



posted on Jul, 22 2009 @ 05:24 AM
link   
I promised myself I wouldn't come back to this thread, 'cos the whole history of the event, the witnesses and inconsistencies in the video make it a likely scam. Anyway, here I am again looking at the higher res YouTube movie of Mr Hernandez and Mr Maussan. What worries me a lot here is the fact that several sections of the video are repeated with vastly different resolutions.

It's clear that Mr Hernandez' camcorder is a pretty low resolution device. The very small aperture attests to that. Forget all the optical zoom capabilities. Resolution is about aperture size and this camera is rowres, especially in capturing targets at this distance. This is evidenced by the lack of clarity achieved throughout. camera shake notwithstanding, it's all pretty poor, but good enough to perceive rotation of the large blob. Now it's been said that the video could have been enhanced by Mr Maussan's tv people so you can see things more clearly. Well nobody can add detail that's not there to start with. They can brighten it up and improve some visual factors, but they can't make low res into hires. It's not possible. Yet here we see a dancing balls sequence in two different resolutions. I think the ball ejection sequences are also presented at differing resolutions in this video.

As an example, notice the short sequence at 2:52 - 2:57.
The four dots dancing around the blob.
That exact same sequence is repeated at higher resolution at 5:02 - 5:07.
In the second showing we can even see the blob rotating.

The only way the second higher res sequence could be obtained is in a separate filming of the same action. There is no other way of doing it. To get a second recording, the action has to be choreographed as in a 3D script of some kind. Maya, LightWave, etc, etc can all do this stuff.

WG3



posted on Jul, 22 2009 @ 06:53 AM
link   

Originally posted by waveguide3

It's clear that Mr Hernandez' camcorder is a pretty low resolution device. The very small aperture attests to that. Forget all the optical zoom capabilities. Resolution is about aperture size and this camera is rowres, especially in capturing targets at this distance.

I thought resolution was determined mostly by the number of pixels in the CCD that captures the image? Now in order to put those pixels to good use, it helps to have things in focus. The larger the aperture, the more precise the focus must be to be clear. Decreasing the aperture tends to increase the depth of field and bring a wider range of objects into focus. With some still cameras I have aperture control (F-stop) but I don't have such a control on my video camera.

Video cameras have another limitation to resolution that still cameras don't, the bandwidth limitation of the recording media, hence the difference between 8mm and hi-8 mm camcorder tapes, and the high 8 cams tend to have more pixels in their CCDs also.


Originally posted by waveguide3
As an example, notice the short sequence at 2:52 - 2:57.
The four dots dancing around the blob.
That exact same sequence is repeated at higher resolution at 5:02 - 5:07.
In the second showing we can even see the blob rotating.

The only way the second higher res sequence could be obtained is in a separate filming of the same action. There is no other way of doing it. To get a second recording, the action has to be choreographed as in a 3D script of some kind. Maya, LightWave, etc, etc can all do this stuff.
WG3

You may not have read the whole thread but it was previously explained that what Maussen is presenting in these videos is a combination of both the original footage, and then replays, some with enhancements done by the TV studio. So don't assume what you see is all raw footage, it's not, there are replays and enhancements on the replays, which isn't attributable to the photographer.

[edit on 22-7-2009 by Arbitrageur]



posted on Jul, 22 2009 @ 09:33 AM
link   
How many times do I have to tell you people its an interdimensional alien spaceship giving birth to smaller plasma being critters? Sheesh, isn't it obvious?







Ha, gotcha! Looks like my Seseme theory is gonna fall on its face, because for all the world it looks like a yellow plastic bag with styrofoam caught in the trailing vortex of the airliner.


In other words, we all are looking at garbage. Isn't that funny? How many man hours was that, 20, 50, 100 thousand? A couple million? How do you feel?



posted on Jul, 22 2009 @ 11:14 AM
link   

Originally posted by Arbitrageur
I thought resolution was determined mostly by the number of pixels in the CCD that captures the image?


That's true to a degree and they fit a CCD chip commensurate with the resolving power of the lens. With a larger, better quality lens, the image could be zoomed to cover the whole chip. Then we'd see whatever detail can be resolved by the lens on a single pixel. My 10" scope for example, could resolve a fly standing on that blob thing. Either way, Mr Hernandez' camera isn't going to resolve very much of such a small distant object.


You may not have read the whole thread but it was previously explained that what Maussen is presenting in these videos is a combination of both the original footage, and then replays, some with enhancements done by the TV studio.


Yes I read the whole saga front to back. As I said in my post, the idea that a low resolution image can be converted into a high resolution image is impossible. The primary image contains only as much data (detail) as the chip is capable of creating. The idea that a single pixel can somehow be 'split' into smaller detail is a falacy. The gizmo used by Deckerd in Blade Runner doesn't exist. Maussan's people couldn't create the second sequence from the first. In my opinion, the second sequence is a separate recording of the same scripted event. It's the same with the ejection sequences, they are re-runs of the same scripted sequence at different resolutions.


So don't assume what you see is all raw footage,


I know that the 'raw' footage hasn't been presented publically (and never will be). The subsequent witness' video never materialised either. This is in spite of his ATS confidant suggesting it would be otherwise. I've done some research into Mr Carrillo's recent activities and it's a joke. I'm not going to repeat it all herr - it's all back there somewhere. Mr Carrillo thinks Venus is a metal sphere! Hernandez, Carrillo and Maussan are all laughing at us. It's all a joke.

WG3



posted on Jul, 22 2009 @ 12:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by Sam60

Originally posted by Arbitrageur
reply to post by easynow
 

Thanks Easynow, good find, this one is clearer!

Check out time index 2:37-2:50, the yellow thing looks something like a big plastic sack fluttering in the wind, except tied to a string at some part of it (usually the left side looks like it's anchored to a string, the right part is fluttering though it rotates).



The clearer the video & the more I watch it, the less I can see anything that suggests anything intelligent (extraterrestrials) or exotic (plasma "critters").

I am leaning more & more towards something that is man made being subjected to the extreme buffeting resulting from the slipstream of that aircraft. My second option is CGI.

[edit on 22-7-2009 by Sam60]


Fine but now you will have to prove it with evidences, you know thoughts equal to
speculations wich equal to nothing substantial in a professional research.

By the way about your second option CGI you are not updated my friend, there is an
actual second withness to this phenomena who also took a very good and descriptive
video showing the phenomena from another position adding more elements to the
research, his appeareance on national television is coming up with interviews so you
will have to reconsider your second option, why don't you check my update on this
thread and check the images I showed. CGI no way.



posted on Jul, 22 2009 @ 12:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by waveguide3
Anyway, here I am again looking at the higher res YouTube movie of Mr Hernandez and
Mr Maussan. What worries me a lot here is the fact that several sections of the video
are repeated with vastly different resolutions.

WG3


Unfortunately your statement is not correct or not valid, there is not a high resolution
video on the Internet, what you are seeing is also a recompressed, resized still low
resolution converted to flash video by Youtube, maybe just a little bit more clearer
that the other one but still not good resolution for anything more than just a review.

If you pretend to present a non professional analysis based on this low resolution
recompressed resized etc. version then it will tell us you are an amteur so try again.
By the way don't worry by anything sir, you still have your life.



posted on Jul, 22 2009 @ 01:02 PM
link   
reply to post by Matyas


Okay calm down now... I made a call help is on the way... they will be in a white van with white coats so you can expect them any time now

PS Speaking of wasted man hours... Where is my space ship




[edit on 22-7-2009 by zorgon]



posted on Jul, 22 2009 @ 01:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by free_spirit
Unfortunately your statement is not correct or not valid, there is not a high resolution video on the Internet, what you are seeing is also a recompressed, resized still low resolution converted to flash video by Youtube, maybe just a little bit more clearer that the other one but still not good resolution for anything more than just a review.


I'm referring to what I see in this single YouTube video, not over a selection of different versions. I'm ambivalent as to whether this particular video is hires or not, that's not relevant. What I'm talking about is sections of this one video. There are at least two sections in this video showing the same sequence at different resolutions. Can you explain it?


If you pretend to present a non professional analysis based on this low resolution recompressed resized etc. version then it will tell us you are an amteur so try again.


I'm not pretending anything. How about you?

WG3




top topics



 
656
<< 62  63  64    66  67  68 >>

log in

join