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: 79
656
<< 76  77  78    80  81  82 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 20 2009 @ 10:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by alfafox
reply to post by ls1cameric
 


Hello -ls1cameric- and all members in this thread

My name is Alejandro Franz from Mexico and I study UFO's since 1963

See my post regarding the thread Real Ufos In Mexico Disclosure By Air Force
www.abovetopsecret.com...


I would like to introduce myself to all members, here you can see my resume:
www.alcione.org...

I don't know if this video has been posted before. If so I'm sorry...
I hope all of you'll like this video that was made by a mexican arquitect
named Josué and I think he's one of the best CG video makers...



www.youtube.com...

Best regrads to all.

Capt. Franz


This video you are showing was posted on August 18?
The videos in question are the beggining of June.

There are seperate witnesses with 2 different videos.

The CGI video is very similar..but it LOOKS CGI..the main ball is vaguely transparent, and the smaller balls are too round and look like cgi too.

IMO, its a good CGI but no dice. I agree Jaimie might be a bit shifty, but hell, he's a business man.

Anyway, its my opinion, hey I could be wrong




posted on Aug, 21 2009 @ 12:52 AM
link   
Fee sprirt

Is there anyway we can see raw foottage as requested since the start of this thread? and by u2u.

I would hope you would wish to put speculation to rest, especially in light of the new CGI posts.

I have film experts ready to go, and would greatly apreciate a conclusive review of the evidence, as would most on ATS.

Cheers Zazz



posted on Aug, 21 2009 @ 04:52 AM
link   
reply to post by guardstarr
 

That's what is supposed to happen, considering that both videos are supposed to show the same event.



posted on Aug, 21 2009 @ 10:22 AM
link   
when is freespirit going to make the dvd data available for analysis?



posted on Aug, 21 2009 @ 01:58 PM
link   
reply to post by Arbitrageur
 


I went back and reread my original post and I can see the confusion, sorry
What I was thinking in my head and what came out were two different things. That seems to happen often to me



posted on Aug, 21 2009 @ 02:08 PM
link   
so what is the score with this video then? forgive me for not reading every post, as im sure i would melt like my avator trying to get threw it all, lol. Anything to do with jaime maussan makes me feel itchy, he seems to believe anything he is shown, dont get me wrong he has been in the business for many years but i think that is his problem, hes been doing it for so long that he just wants every piece of footage to be real just so he can say "hey, my long hard work and study has finally paid off and now we know they exist". I hope it is real, as im a firm beleiver, it sounds like the person with the RAW footage seems to slow at helping to establish the authenticity of the footage. Please give these great people here at ATS the RAW footage so we can put this to bed.

Peace



posted on Aug, 21 2009 @ 04:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by ArMaP
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.


I agree, Armap.

I don't think the "flapping" effect is definitive in this video.

It's also very difficult to reconcile the "flapping" effect with any scenario other than Necati's idea of the object being CGI'd using a bird as it's basis.

I have to wonder.....

If the original video "proves" this is something "exotic" (i.e. plasma critter) or "extraterrestrial" (i.e. an alien craft / drone), I just can't see why it hasn't been released more broadly & made available for strong analysis & peer review.

On balance, I feel the lack of broad release indicates the original video might show "proof" this is something much less exciting.

I know I will get jumped on for saying this, but I have to extend my "wondering" to the size of the "pay cheques" being derived by those involved & their enjoyment of their present & increasing celebrity status.

What's my wish?

My wish is for the original video to be released & withstand expert scrutiny & peer review, thereby knocking out all options other than the "exotic" or the "extraterrestrial".



posted on Aug, 21 2009 @ 05:01 PM
link   
I agree, Im dying to see the original..I dont think everyone will "believe" anyway, the public sees those of us who believe in ufos as nutheads.



posted on Aug, 21 2009 @ 05:12 PM
link   

Originally posted by Yummy Freelunch
I agree, Im dying to see the original..I dont think everyone will "believe" anyway, the public sees those of us who believe in ufos as nutheads.


G'day Yummy Freelunch.....

I think you're famous now


There are so few videos & pictures of UFO's that to my mind stand up to scrutiny, it's a terrible shame to see those buried by the neverending avalanche of poorly critiqued (& even blatantly hoaxed) material.

For what it's worth, my "own" list of photos & videos is extremely short & includes the Nellis case, the NZ / ABC TV case & the Belgium triangle case (plus possibly that crazy triangle + object case from the USA, last year).

I would be absolutely thrilled if this video could be added to "my" list of those pictures & videos that are possibly "real".



[edit on 21-8-2009 by Sam60]



posted on Aug, 21 2009 @ 05:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by Sam60

Originally posted by ArMaP
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.


I agree, Armap.

I don't think the "flapping" effect is definitive in this video.

It's also very difficult to reconcile the "flapping" effect with any scenario other than Necati's idea of the object being CGI'd using a bird as it's basis.

I don't think the flapping is definite either, but I disagree that it's difficult to reconcile with other scenarios, it's quite easy to reconcile with other scenarios


On balance, I feel the lack of broad release indicates the original video might show "proof" this is something much less exciting.


by original video you mean the Hernandez video?
I'm actually more intrigued by the Carrillo video, and would like to see the whole unedited content even at youtube resolution, for I agree with ArMaP's observation here:


Originally posted by ArMaP

Originally posted by Sam60
Like I said, I wish we could see where the "balls" go.
I would like to see if they were coming from the ground, the fact that they do a fade in to a different scene makes me think that they may be hiding something they do not like.

Why didn't they show the unedited footage like with the first video?

Or was that editing made by the author?


I also wonder if they are hiding something they don't like.

But yes, if Springer could get his hands on copies of BOTH original videos that would be the best thing that could happen to this investigation. But I suspect there are people that disagree, namely, those people who would prefer that this remain a mystery, rather than be subjected to professional scrutiny and analysis.

[edit on 21-8-2009 by Arbitrageur]



posted on Aug, 21 2009 @ 05:24 PM
link   
reply to post by Arbitrageur
 

G'day Arbitrageur....

In case I wasn't expressing myself clearly, by "flapping" I meant "real flapping" as in a bird flapping. I didn't mean "flapping around" as in parts of the object flapping in mooted turbulence.

In the context of the "flapping around", I agree with the you the "flapping" IS easy to reconcile with other scenarios.

I confirm I agree the Camillo video is the more interesting one. That's the one I want to see the most, notwithstanding it will be ideal to see both scrutinised. By "original" I was refering to quality, not the the order in which they were released.

BTW......don't miss the new Billy Meier battle thread....... you gotta love those Billy Meier threads


[edit on 21-8-2009 by Sam60]



posted on Aug, 21 2009 @ 05:37 PM
link   
reply to post by JayinAR
 


werent there 2 videos of this from 2 different people?Thats what i saw 2 different ones from 2 diff people from 2 diff vantage points



posted on Aug, 21 2009 @ 05:46 PM
link   

Originally posted by Sam60

Originally posted by Yummy Freelunch
I agree, Im dying to see the original..I dont think everyone will "believe" anyway, the public sees those of us who believe in ufos as nutheads.


G'day Yummy Freelunch.....

I think you're famous now


There are so few videos & pictures of UFO's that to my mind stand up to scrutiny, it's a terrible shame to see those buried by the neverending avalanche of poorly critiqued (& even blatantly hoaxed) material.

For what it's worth, my "own" list of photos & videos is extremely short & includes the Nellis case, the NZ / ABC TV case & the Belgium triangle case (plus possibly that crazy triangle + object case from the USA, last year).

I would be absolutely thrilled if this video could be added to "my" list of those pictures & videos that are possibly "real".



[edit on 21-8-2009 by Sam60]


And G'day to you too, Sam
Yes, I agree, my list is very short too, but this one was one that I just thought, wow, that is something different! Hopefully we'll get some more evidence



posted on Aug, 21 2009 @ 05:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by zazzafrazz
Free sprirt

Is there anyway we can see raw foottage as requested since the start of this thread? and by u2u.

I would hope you would wish to put speculation to rest, especially in light of the new CGI posts.

I have film experts ready to go, and would greatly apreciate a conclusive review of the evidence, as would most on ATS.




Until we see raw footage its circle work I'm afraid.....

There delay in providing it for scutiny is unfortunate as it just leads to specualtion as to its authenticity...why hide it? Get it out there.
If free spirirt has copyright over the footage, thats for monetary purposes one can only assume. (and I have no problem with that) Surely annalysis by unbiased experts resulting in proof postivie of no tampering would only increase value of the footage and undoubtledly receive even more mainstream media attention as opposed to fringe.

Request to interview Fernandez on the proviso of raw footage annalysis has been forwarded several times, and these requests have not been adressed since the release of this compressed footaged.



[edit on 21-8-2009 by zazzafrazz]



posted on Aug, 21 2009 @ 06:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by zazzafrazz

Originally posted by zazzafrazz
Surely annalysis by unbiased experts resulting in proof postivie of no tampering would only increase value of the footage.......


That's a very good point you make


Hopefully that will encourage such analysis & critique.



posted on Aug, 21 2009 @ 06:10 PM
link   

Originally posted by Sam60
reply to post by Arbitrageur
 

G'day Arbitrageur....

In case I wasn't expressing myself clearly, by "flapping" I meant "real flapping" as in a bird flapping. I didn't mean "flapping around" as in parts of the object flapping in mooted turbulence.

In the context of the "flapping around", I agree with the you the "flapping" IS easy to reconcile with other scenarios.

Hi Sam, thanks for clarifying but I assumed that's what you meant. The flapping around in turbulence is one thing, but the bird-like flapping motion (which LOOKS like a birdlike flapping motion but you me and ArMaP all agree the original object recorded may have looked different) is explainable by any number of scenarios, many of which have nothing to do with CGI.

So there was no misunderstanding on my part about what you were referring to.

What I was thinking is if this object had something like "trap doors" in it to release the balloons once at altitude, (maybe operated by separate strings) it's the movement of those "trap doors" we could be seeing in what looks like "bird flapping" I'm not saying that's what it is, but that's one possible alternate explanation among many that has nothing to do with what you mentioned. It could be there are no trap doors of any sort and what we are seeing is a video artifact of a slight fluttering motion that merely looks like a wing flapping. I could list others too but you get the idea, and they would all be consistent with the video due to the distance & resolution.



posted on Aug, 21 2009 @ 06:14 PM
link   

Originally posted by zazzafrazz
Request to interview Fernandez on the proviso of raw footage annalysis has been forwarded several times, and these requests have not been adressed since the release of this compressed footaged.


Did you mean Hernandez? If you meant Fernandez, who is that?

Maybe try Carrillo? I'm actually more interested in seeing his unedited video anyway.



posted on Aug, 21 2009 @ 06:16 PM
link   
reply to post by Arbitrageur
 


lol Hernandez..yes I think you know who i meant.

Fernandez is my maintenace guy at the office.



posted on Aug, 21 2009 @ 07:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by zazzafrazz

Originally posted by zazzafrazz
Free sprirt

Is there anyway we can see raw foottage as requested since the start of this thread?
and by u2u.

I would hope you would wish to put speculation to rest, especially in light of the new
CGI posts.

I have film experts ready to go, and would greatly apreciate a conclusive review of the
evidence, as would most on ATS.




Until we see raw footage its circle work I'm afraid.....

There delay in providing it for scutiny is unfortunate as it just leads to specualtion as to
its authenticity...why hide it? Get it out there.
If free spirirt has copyright over the footage, thats for monetary purposes one can only
assume.

[edit on 21-8-2009 by zazzafrazz]


I think you and I had already some talk about this via U2U and I made myself very
clear so please lady don't start now with fallacies. Thank you.



posted on Aug, 21 2009 @ 07:37 PM
link   
reply to post by free_spirit
 


There are no falacies. I am not being rude, simply perplexed as to avoidance of scrutiny.

You have claimed copyright. No one made this claim but you.

Sequence of events:
I asked to see raw footage, for both external experts, and internal ATS experts like Internos to review.
You said you'd look into the request.
I repeated the requests.
You said again you'd get back to me.
And I still heard nothing.

No fallacy from me, nor clarity from you, so I am sorry but I was left with no clear yes or no. The relaese of raw to anyone (I really dont care who does it provided they are impartial) from what I can see this hasn't taken place, but please correct me if it has.

This thread has had several people asking for the raw footage.

The 'perplexing' we feel at the owner of the copyrighted footage not wanting it validated for some reason is warranted.

1)Have it looked at by whomever that is impartial and expert

2) Continue to not have it scrutinizied and validated by an impartial party (if you have then I apologize and look forward to the non biased report being released )

From these 2 choices of action there will be reactions.

If you don't have it scrutinzed....Then those of us wanting proper reseacrch done will be perplexed, and rightly so, surely you can see that?

If you do have it scrutinzed, then we are all greatful that proper research and not simply conjecture is applied to the footage.

Currently only conjecture can be applied to what could be an important object to try and research.

If you own the copyright, not Hernandez, the decision to release is yours.
You revert back to alot 'I will ask Hernandez', but you own the copyright now, it is your decision.

I do sincerely hope you reconsider as this thread has gone on for 80 pages of pure specualtion when we could be movng forward.
Thank you
Z



[edit on 22-8-2009 by zazzafrazz]



new topics

top topics



 
656
<< 76  77  78    80  81  82 >>

log in

join