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.

 

This footage is Amazing...Ufo orbs even cast a shadow...awsome! must watch

page: 3
30
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 6 2009 @ 11:11 AM
link   
reply to post by ArMaP
 


you asked about a shadow on the water.


I accidentally deleted my frames lol
But if ya watch it right before that screenshot.

the shadow appears at the edge of the water and it is at roughyl the same angel other shadow is later on.

because that ufo is close to the helicopter or plane.
but it is casting a shadow.
show is on that concrete thing i rekon that what it is.

[edit on 6-8-2009 by TheAmused]




posted on Aug, 6 2009 @ 11:11 AM
link   
I was just in google images for about an hour.....

I think the OP's video looks a lot like this, which is in N. Dakota, Great Plains Synfuels Plant

edit to add: If you put both of them in a window, and click back and forth (adjusting mentally for perspective)........ it seems a pretty fair match to me.

[edit on 6/8/09 by argentus]



posted on Aug, 6 2009 @ 11:13 AM
link   
After searching for quite some time I can now identify the power plant in question as The Mountaineer Plant, a 1,300 megawatt power plant situated near New Haven at the eastern end of the Ohio River valley.



posted on Aug, 6 2009 @ 11:15 AM
link   
Good video but as others have said a UFO is pretty much going to have to land on the White House lawn and say take me to your leader with all the news channels there. Someone will still yell CGI because of 911.

Whoever did this was good. The orbs are a known object in the UFO community. They have been known to appear around power plants also.



posted on Aug, 6 2009 @ 11:15 AM
link   
For comparison see this image of the Mountaineer Plant.

www.earthmagazine.org...



posted on Aug, 6 2009 @ 11:38 AM
link   

Originally posted by argentus
I was just in google images for about an hour.....

I think the OP's video looks a lot like this, which is in N. Dakota, Great Plains Synfuels Plant

edit to add: If you put both of them in a window, and click back and forth (adjusting mentally for perspective)........ it seems a pretty fair match to me.

[edit on 6/8/09 by argentus]


both of u posted same time so i will reply to both of ya.

Look at the big smoke stack.
it's fatter and curves out at the tip of it.

the smoke stack in the video doesn't do that.

it's alot skinner and not as chubby.
its real close but it cant be same one.
i wouldn't think.

the two skinny smoke stack's look dead on it.
But unless they redone the other stack i doubt it's it.

it's real close thought so idk.
maybe my old eyes playing tricks



posted on Aug, 6 2009 @ 11:54 AM
link   
reply to post by TheAmused
 


I've checked and rechecked and you do have a point although I think the changes to the larger stack is purely down to perception. In the video you're looking down on the stack and in the picture I posted you're looking up from ground level. If you pause the video near the begining you will even see that the water line and small buildings dotted along it all appear to line up.



posted on Aug, 6 2009 @ 12:02 PM
link   
I work with CGI all the time, I can tell this is CGI by the movements, especially at 0:35 etc. I would say this video displays certain motion characteristic that suggests CGI. Those objects do display circular movement to give it more realism, but when the 3 objects circular around one of the objects, all four objects move at the same time in the frames at the end! That sends a flag that it's CGI.

1. Plus the circular spheres are not casting the sun light on them correctly, the sun light is on top of the spheres. 2. The two stacks in the background suggest less of an angle by their shadows, so the lighting and shadows are incorrect 3.certain motion characteristic that suggests CGI etc...




[edit on 6-8-2009 by imitator]



posted on Aug, 6 2009 @ 12:12 PM
link   
reply to post by Mintwithahole.
 


both of us posted the same photo, but the link I got it from walk talking about the Plains Synfuel plant. Could be that they used it as a stock photo.

I think that's the same plant, just, as you said, a different perspective than the air shot in the OP's video.

EDIT to add: I should've looked at my own link a bit more...... the photos are set up like a slide show, and sure enough, it switches to the photo we both grabbed and is labeled Mountaineer Plant.

good job.



[edit on 6/8/09 by argentus]



posted on Aug, 6 2009 @ 12:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by TheAmused
you asked about a shadow on the water.

No, I only talked about the reflection on the water, not the shadow.



posted on Aug, 6 2009 @ 01:10 PM
link   
I have been waiting my entire life to realize my 'special-purpose' here ya go...........



And to think I felt like an outcast before ATS. You guys make my OCD seem normal. Keep up the good work.



posted on Aug, 6 2009 @ 01:15 PM
link   
In the residential shot I thought that it was quite strange that the camera wasn't following the spheres. If that's what they were filming why wouldn't you track them?



posted on Aug, 6 2009 @ 01:29 PM
link   
reply to post by kinda kurious
 


Yes, that's the one.




posted on Aug, 6 2009 @ 01:39 PM
link   

Originally posted by imitator
I work with CGI all the time, I can tell this is CGI by the movements, especially at 0:35 etc.

...
[edit on 6-8-2009 by imitator]


Completely agree, the first thing I was watching at was the tracking. As ArMaP said, one of the orbs shakes. But there's more shacking.

Note from 0:05 to 0:11 when they stop and one orb goes behind a tower. This says the objects are 'near' or at least along the nuclear plant, but the tracking does not fit with the helicopter's movement. Neither the perspective.



posted on Aug, 6 2009 @ 01:47 PM
link   
My money is on CGI with this one. 2 reasons: first, there is no reflection in the water of the orbs near the stacks. Maybe they were not quite in the right position to show up there, I'll give you that one #2: when they first zoom in the shadows cast by the orbs are way too dark. Anything flying at that altitude would cast a shadow but it would be diffused. Nice try guys. Government confiscation is the icing on the cake. Keep trying!



posted on Aug, 6 2009 @ 01:47 PM
link   
My money is on CGI with this one. 2 reasons: first, there is no reflection in the water of the orbs near the stacks. Maybe they were not quite in the right position to show up there, I'll give you that one #2: when they first zoom in the shadows cast by the orbs are way too dark. Anything flying at that altitude would cast a shadow but it would be diffused. Nice try guys. Government confiscation is the icing on the cake. Keep trying!



posted on Aug, 6 2009 @ 02:02 PM
link   
reply to post by Mintwithahole.
 


Mint, I certainly appreciate the effort you put into finding that pic but I dont think that can be it.
Reason? the 2 tall stacks are in the same relation to each other in both the video and the still, right? how then could the fat tower change sides? Even if the image were reversed it still wouldnt work out. Extremely similar though.
Again, this is why I love ATS, because people get off their asses and look for answers. Star for ya brother.



posted on Aug, 6 2009 @ 02:08 PM
link   
reply to post by kinda kurious
 


Sorry Kurious, close but no cigar. There is no way they are the same. Look at the relation of the tall stacks. it isn't possible to get those stacks in that relation to each other with the fat stack where it is.



posted on Aug, 6 2009 @ 02:11 PM
link   
There are a lot of debunks that shouldn't be used ever, but one sticks out more than most.

If you where to take a picture of a dog 100ft away with a 10 megapixel camera would you call it fake because the dog is too detailed? Saying something is too detailed is a fallacy because if something is real it is going to have detail. If it is shot with a decent camera at decent resolution you can make out detail.... Not saying these are real but saying they are fake because there is too much detail is just plain stupid. Saying it's CGI because there is too much detail is just as stupid. Come up with better reasons other than "it's too detailed so therefore it's fake".

If i took a detailed picture of a plane would you call it fake? People cant forget, we are in the age of high resolution....

[edit on 6-8-2009 by DaMod]



posted on Aug, 6 2009 @ 02:12 PM
link   
reply to post by Asktheanimals
 


Perspective is a funny thing.

Did you saw my post with image from Google Earth? All the area is correct, that is the correct power plant.



new topics

top topics



 
30
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join