UFO releases intelligent moving spheres!! First ever video footage!

Originally posted by Sam60
reply to post by free_spirit

 

Thank you free_spirit......

I appreciate your detailed reply.

I am thinking about all of the points you made.

Earlier this year you said to me "be patient......it's a very complicated subject".

I must agree.

Yeah - years ago - my sister and me were out camping - under the stars - know how you make shapes out of them? We saw a triangle of stars - gradually one star moved so slowly - then what looked like a lighthouse over a hill, gradually, too, climbed. Then it shot out over to the errant star in the triangle. then, another shot up, like a light, over that hilll, and squiggled off so slowly, you couldn't even seee it was moving, until it joined the other 2 ufo's - they all three squiggled ( so as to not even hardly see they were moving) until all three send out wierd green lites - and then were off in a blast - just like that - that was almost 40 years ago - Mt Baker Lake - washington!

Originally posted by EYE SEE

Originally posted by Sam60
reply to post by free_spirit

 

Thank you free_spirit......

I appreciate your detailed reply.

I am thinking about all of the points you made.

Earlier this year you said to me "be patient......it's a very complicated subject".

I must agree.

Yeah - years ago - my sister and me were out camping - under the stars - know how you make shapes out of them? We saw a triangle of stars - gradually one star moved so slowly - then what looked like a lighthouse over a hill, gradually, too, climbed. Then it shot out over to the errant star in the triangle. then, another shot up, like a light, over that hilll, and squiggled off so slowly, you couldn't even seee it was moving, until it joined the other 2 ufo's - they all three squiggled ( so as to not even hardly see they were moving) until all three send out wierd green lites - and then were off in a blast - just like that - that was almost 40 years ago - Mt Baker Lake - washington!

Thanks for your very interesting response, EYE SEE....

It must have been fascinating to see something like that.

Originally posted by ArMaP
Just some nit-picking.

At this point we cannot see if the object is rotating, it's too far away and the image is
not good enough.

Ah OK, remember I have a digital copy of the original raw footage in high resolution, I
see the object very clear and with zoom, to be fair with you I have this advantage but I
say again, the object is rotating all right and very fast on it's axis if you will. Besides it's
not only the testimony of the witness and the experts who analyzed this footage but
also the opinion of many members in this thread if you remember, I could ask you to
review the comments again but so many pages would be so exhausting. Trust me the
object was rotating or spinning, this is one of the main features in this footage.

Regarding opposite directions instead different directions as you suggested is not exact.
Opposite directions is when the spheres were released. After that those spheres went
away in different directions and Pedro didn't know at that time wich ones to follow with
his camera. It's in his testimony and you said At the beguinning. How about later?

You are asking me this: Where did you saw any clear sign of technology? You didn't get
the sense of my statement. I was discussing about the posibility these spheres may be
balloons of some kind, you see? Then I said what kind of technology is required to
produce such display in the sky. Now you know what I meant.

Finally, “the bird flapping” suggestion? You mean a big bird releasing flying eggs in the
sky? I don't think so.

Originally posted by free_spirit
Ah OK, remember I have a digital copy of the original raw footage in high resolution

Just wanted to ask, is this also going to be released some time later?

Originally posted by ziggyproductions05
reply to post by Clickfoot

 

I wondered how they fit in there as well. But maybe they are some kind of plasma beings that are actually biological? Just a thought, or it could be CGI. I just really feel that this is some kind of birthing process we may've witnessed.

There is a theory shared by some colleagues that this may be the process in wich the
UFO fleets are formed. Also the theory suggests these spheres could be monitoring
devices to observe and study people, buildings, airplanes, military bases etc. I have
a video where a single sphere descends over a building and moves outside close to
the windows like observing something.

[edit on 20-8-2009 by free_spirit]

Originally posted by spacecase7717

Originally posted by Clickfoot

Originally posted by Arbitrageur
My theory has always been that the objects were ejected on strings

The only problem I have with this theory is how do all these objects, whatever they are, fit inside the main object?

I agree, I don't know how they all got inside the main object. It may have gotten some smaller but not alot. There was at least 80-100 from what I could count. The original object should have got a whole lot smalller. Plus at the end of the video 4 come back and circle the main object. They orginally look like ballons on a string to me. I just don't know. Check out the second video on this page www.realufos.net...

As I said I'm fairly certain I could build an elaborate kite to do all of this. How would all the objects fit? Well if I wanted to eject 75 balloons from each side, I'd make the yellow container large enough to hold 150 balloons, I don't see why that's a mystery. Maybe you expect the main object to be 150 times larger to hold 150 smaller objects? Well the math says, it will be 150 times larger, but it won't look 150 times larger. That's because what you see is the area which increases as the square of the radius, and the volume increases with the cube of the radius.

I did some math for you. Let's say the balloons are one foot in diameter, They have a volume of about 0.5 cubic foot each. So the bare minimum volume needed for 150 such balloons would be 75 cubic feet plus the extra spaces between the balloons, which we could estimate at say 25%. So, 75 x 1.25 gives us 93.75 cubic feet of space needed to hold 150 balloons give or take a little depending on the exact shape of the balloons etc.

Now I'm not sure exactly what shape the yellow object is, especially when it's flapping around, but let's say it's roughly cylindrical in shape.

The volume of a cylinder is D*Pi*r^2 . Let's say we make a yellow plastic cylinder 5 feet long, and 5 feet wide (diameter of 2.5 feet). That gives us a little over 98 cubic feet. So even though it holds 150 times as much space, it may only look 5 times bigger to an observer (5' wide versus 1' wide). And I think it's more than 5 times bigger so it should have plenty of room to hold 150 balloons. Is that what you were wondering about?

As for whether the yellow object gets smaller, or doesn't get smaller after the ejection, I think that's not an important question. It could do either. And with all the zooming in and out it's kind of hard to tell if it's actually changing size.

It's obvious that at least part of the yellow object is flexible, you can see the it flapping in the wind like a big plastic bag tied to a string, in the first video. To me that is much more telling than the bird-flapping motion. Watch the bird-flapping appearance in the first video and at the tail end of that segment you'll see the not just the wing flap, but a large portion of the yellow object flapping. This is significant, as it tells us something about the construction of the object.

Because the wind is blowing, it could keep the container puffed up with air pressure from the wind, even after ejecting the objects. Or the yellow container could partially collapse. There may or may not be some type of framing structure in part of the container (like maybe balsa wood struts or coat-hangar-sized wire) to give it a little structure to make the objects easier to eject. If so, this would limit the amount of collapsing it would do. The object is so fuzzy all I can say for sure is that part of the object has little structure the way it flaps in the wind, but part of it could have a wire frame keeping it from collapsing completely, I'm not sure about that.

@ArMaP and FreeSpirit, I have to agree with ArMaP, I really don't see any signs of any technology in these videos, beyond some elaborate kite-building.

reply to post by Arbitrageur


I would love to see you own recreation if you can produce the same effects. Just be
sure to make the recreation complete that is to be sure those balloons go away at
certain time and then return to the big container and perform the exact maneuvers
around it and then depart again like in the footage. Be sure the container shows alone
for some minutes rotating very fast and then after releasing the balloons to slow down
it's rotation till it stops. Be sure this container remains in the sky while the other small
balloons go away in different directions and I say in different directions not as a whole
bunch or together.

Needless to say I will be anxious to see your own recreation, take your time I'll be
around. By the way about the technology you also didnt understand what I meant.
If these were some kind of balloons making that display in the sky wasn't their act
made with technology or you think they were made by themselves from scratch?
Simple and basic.

@ArMaP and FreeSpirit, I have to agree with ArMaP, I really don't see any signs of any technology in these videos, beyond some elaborate kite-building.

Surely, you are joking? Have you not read anything that Free Spirit has posted here..
And I agree, Id also like to see you replicate this , and will be standing by for your video

reply to post by Arbitrageur

G'day again Arbitrageur.....

I swear I'll get square eyes from watching this video!

In the 2nd witness video posted by free_spirit there is a side-by-side comparison of the videos taken by the 1st & 2nd witnesses. In that section of the video, have a really close look at the "dancing balls" from the 1st witness video (i.e. on the right side of the screen).

There seems to be a tail showing briefly on some (most) of those "dancing balls". Is it video tailing (i.e. artifact)? Or rather, is it something physical attached to the "dancing balls". If it's the latter, that obviously supports the "elaborate kite" idea.

I'm also not completely convinced the balls "go away from" & then "come back to" the object. I'm thinking they might have been "ejected" or become "detached" from the object after all the other balls have left the field of view of the video.

Not only does the poor resolution make this difficult to ascertain, the constant changes in angle, zoom, scene, etc... of the picture make it difficult to understand the detail of the continuity of what's occuring.


[edit on 20-8-2009 by Sam60]

Originally posted by free_spiritI have
a video where a single sphere descends over a building and moves outside close to the windows like observing something.

OR

Its merely a curious 'critter' No technology required... same results


500 flags Way to go Elfling






[edit on 20-8-2009 by zorgon]

Just a note to report: The numbers increased and now we have 500 flags (and counting)
in this thread, 77 pages (and counting), luckymauro received 13777 views in three days
to his Second Witness Report posted Monday 17 in his YouTube channel. What a record.
Regards.

Originally posted by free_spirit
By the way about the technology you also didnt understand what I meant.
If these were some kind of balloons making that display in the sky wasn't their act
made with technology or you think they were made by themselves from scratch?
Simple and basic.

After seeing the jet fly by, we possibly have something besides wind to deal with, the turbulence created by the passing jet.

My friend, if you watch this video with an open mind, you will hopefully see the implications for some very interesting air motions in the wake of a jet!!!!



This is one of those cases where fact can seem stranger than fiction, I don't think people really expect to see the air doing this in this video. The balloons are just along for the ride with the air, there is nothing else controlling them.

Originally posted by Arbitrageur
My friend, if you watch this video with an open mind, you will hopefully see the implications for some very interesting air motions in the wake of a jet!!!!

Cool picture of the vortex, only problem is its ALWAYS a vortex and I see no indication in the videos of a vortex effect





Next

[edit on 20-8-2009 by zorgon]

reply to post by zorgon
you know, when I was a kid...I saw this basketball sized ball of yellow light orbiting a tree branch

I was going to investigate but my older brother prevailed on me to not do so...he said it was just a bunch of fireflies

reply to post by Arbitrageur

I agree that video must make one think more about this.

I was making the point about trailing turbulence from that plane waaaaay back near the beginning of the thread.

It's very difficult to say a whole lot more without a clearer video.

Upon viewing a clearer video, one might subsequently lean more towards free-spirit's conclusions. Or obviously, one might feel it firms up the case for your line of thinking.

I wonder if we'll ever get to see it.


[edit on 20-8-2009 by Sam60]

Originally posted by Sam60
In the 2nd witness video posted by free_spirit there is a side-by-side comparison of the videos taken by the 1st & 2nd witnesses. In that section of the video, have a really close look at the "dancing balls" from the 1st witness video (i.e. on the right side of the screen).

There seems to be a tail showing briefly on some (most) of those "dancing balls". Is it video tailing (i.e. artifact)? Or rather, is it something physical attached to the "dancing balls". If it's the latter, that obviously supports the "elaborate kite" idea.

I see what you're talking about. Regarding whether that's an artifact or or something else, that's the type of thing we might be able to determine if they sent a copy of the original tape to Springer so he could have it analyzed as he offered to do.

One thing I looked at is to see if the distance between the yellow object and the 4 orbs ever exceeded a fixed maximum distance. If there seems to be a fixed upper limit to the distance that would lend some credence to the possibility they are still attached, however that's not very definitive.

@Zorgon I wasn't necessarily trying to say the dancing motion displays a vortex, but rather the air is disturbed in the wake of the jet. Your photos show some air motion even outside the center of the vortex, so we could be dealing with that.

But I've seen wind blow objects around in circles or in odd paths even when there was no jet passing by, so I don't even think it has to be a consequence of the jetwash. However I find it extremely interesting the way the timing seems just about right for the jet to be a contributing factor in the dancing motion. Could that just be a coincidence? Maybe, or maybe not.

Originally posted by Arbitrageur
Good job on the stabilization and slow-motion ArMaP!

What kind of software do you use for that?

I use VirtualDub and the Deshaker plug-in, but as VirtualDub cannot read the MP4 file from YouTube I had to convert it first with Avidemux.

All are freeware.

reply to post by Sam60


I saw that video, but I hope my version shows it better, but it will depend on the final conversion to Flash Video.

Anyway, here it is.

reply to post by ArMaP

Thanks Armap....

Unfortunately your version seems to pixelate & saturate the colour more than Necati's version. That's a pity.

Nevertheless the "flapping" motion was quite apparent during quite a long period in your version.

How do you reconcile this "flapping" motion. Do you think it's just coincidental & caused by the mooted "spinning" motion? Necati felt it could have been CGI using a flapping yellow bird as the basis for the video.

It was also interesting to see the "balls" come back into close proximity to the object. That's a strange aspect of the video.

What do you presently make of it all?

reply to post by Sam60


I really don't know, the fact that it looks like something flapping is not enough for me to think that it's really something flapping, the image is not good enough for that.

There's not much we can do with a YouTube quality video.