It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


*ANOTHER UFO video - Skeptics try again!!

page: 1
<<   2  3 >>

log in


posted on Sep, 3 2009 @ 02:24 PM
I decided to show yet ANOTHER video from the same user that was filmed on 01 September 2009, 23:44 AM (after the previous thread I started, see below for history):

ANOTHER CRAZY BLINKING UFO Filmed 01 September 2009, 23:44 AM

- Object does a 90 degree turn (satellite don't do 90 degree turns)
- Speed changes through the video (object can be moving up/down ?!)
- Glowing pattern is timed the same (can not be a bird flapping it's wings, as they glide up/down without flapping wings)
- Object is dimming out and then flares back up brightly (?)


I originally posted a blog and invited skeptics to try to explain this video:

Many skeptic claim this being a bird and the pulsing is the birds wings flapping. I've provided few videos showing birds flapping their wings filmed with a NV camera and none were the same as the video above (they don't glow/pulse), yet the conclusion was that it is too diffiuclt to judge what it actually is, so either it was a bird/ufo!

For sake of the conversation I'll also post another video of a bird filmed at night with same camera (same user) to show the difference;

Birds/Bats filmed with same NV camera

Still think this is a bird? Can we admit this is a UFO (unidentified flying object)?

[edit on 3-9-2009 by freighttrain]

posted on Sep, 3 2009 @ 02:45 PM
Its not doing a 90 degree turn, seems to me they are simply rotating the camera while trying to keep track of it

posted on Sep, 3 2009 @ 02:49 PM
Well the saucer can go in another chosen direction with the flick of a switch.
One propelled by the initial force the saucer speeds off under Newton's
Law unless acted on by another force.
If that force is 90 degree to the present path then the law says it goes
that way.

[edit on 9/3/2009 by TeslaandLyne]

posted on Sep, 3 2009 @ 02:51 PM
reply to post by jesiaha

It is turning... not exactly 90 degree, but not going in a straight line! He's trying to "keep track of it" because it's NOT going in a straight line.

posted on Sep, 3 2009 @ 02:53 PM
Tumbling satellites "blink" as they tumble.

The satellite did not change direction. Look at the motion of the clouds. First they are going from right to left, then from left to right. Unless the clouds suddenly changed direction, the camera rotated.

[edit on 9/3/2009 by Phage]

posted on Sep, 3 2009 @ 02:58 PM

off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


posted on Sep, 3 2009 @ 03:35 PM
I don't think it looks like the same type of thing as in the video from your other thread (and you didn't you posted this video in the other thread?).

The object in this video looks (at the moment I have seen the video only once) like it passes through three different levels of brightness with almost invisible phases between those.

The change in brightness is constant and does not appear to have changes in rhythm that the other video shows.

The object does not appear to change direction.

PS: capital letters and many exclamation marks do not make a thread look better, only slightly ridiculous.

Edit: Now that I have seen the whole video I think it's four different levels of brightness instead of three.

[edit on 3/9/2009 by ArMaP]

posted on Sep, 3 2009 @ 03:37 PM
Please accept the following from someone that also searches for the truth, has 25+ years doing so and a slew of equipment to help him try and accomplish that goal.

I also agree with the above postings that the trajectory you think is a clear indication of the path of "the satellite" veering at an angle is simply the camera rotating and moving to keep up with it.

The Camera has to turn on the tripod to be able to keep the satellite within it's POV. This is normal and I myself have footage of satellites that would compliment this 'capture'. Even if the camera was on a wide shot with the horizon plane visible, we would get the 'illusion' that the 'satellite' was 'arcing' from "Point-A to Point-B" as it travels over the curvature of the Earth.

In regards as to the blinking/pulsing. As the satellite spins, it catches the reflection of the sunlight which in turn creates this "pulsing" effect ( in most cases). Satellites tumble and turn as they orbit.

Although I can appreciate your eagerness and desire to back up your 'beliefs' (which is great, I too believe it is mathematically impossible for Earthlings to be the only lifeforms in the Universe), one has to be able to rule out a number of factors before anyone in the field of UFOlogy will take you seriously. To put up a video from YouTube which isn't even at a 4:3 aspect ratio and is highly compressed followed by a Thread header to have "Skeptics debunk this" is actually a rather poor decision for anyone wanting some real answers. For this post to be taken seriously, we would require a ton of information for example:

Date, time, Location, wind/weather conditions, equipment used, the settings and focal lenses on said equipment, witnesses names, reports of same sighting perhaps seen/captured else where by others. Witness's exact description of the event, the length of the event, Actual color and size description of the "unknown", if it was visible by the naked eye, etc., (not to mention the possibility to review the 'actual footage'). And that's really just a brief list of requirements..

Now this makes the 2nd time (that I'm aware of) that you've thrown out a "youtube video" with a header for Skeptics to come debunk it. You provide no added information to back the information you post yet get irritable when "the wisdom of the crowd" offers their thoughts and conjecture as to what it is were seeing. If you would like us to take your submissions with a bit more respect, perhaps you should respect the comments and the intelligence of our members prior to posting as many themselves also believe but know that one needs to use "occams razor" before they step forward.

Just my two cents

[edit on 9/3/2009 by JohnnyAnonymous]

posted on Sep, 3 2009 @ 03:49 PM
This is just like the other thread you started, same type of video and i have the same problems with it. The guy who uploaded it has 200+ UFO videos and this is the best? come on.

posted on Sep, 3 2009 @ 03:50 PM
"skeptics try again"

Next time when you put this in the title try not to post something that gets debunked in post #2.
don't make a fool of yourself.

posted on Sep, 3 2009 @ 03:58 PM
reply to post by JohnnyAnonymous

Well said.

posted on Sep, 3 2009 @ 04:05 PM
reply to post by zaiger

Dang it... you beat me to it...
Well anyways - in the previous thread with similar video I said exactly this...

I honestly feel now looking at these videos - that we are seeing satellites and the swiveling camera produces the seeming swift changes in direction.

Points of light moving across a night sky, slowly, fast, changing direction etc are not very compelling, and as mentioned here they become even less compelling if they originate from a source who has seemingly captured hundreds of similar videos when nobody else seems to have captured any such instances... I refer to my last post from the previous thread where I actually Google "UFOs" for the town in question plus several towns/cities and found no unusual numbers of reported sightings.

A couple of points for the poster, as reflected through some of the responses already here:

1. Most (real) skeptics are not here to bash you, or your ideas, or even your videos and beliefs
2. As a skeptic I approach any story, idea or video with the concept of "make me belief" or "prove to me beyond a reasonable doubt that your point of view is the most likely"
3. Having a heading that is combative towards a group of people who are very active on ATS and are respectful and give as best as possible factual responses is at the very least not helpful and at worst seen as trying to start a battle between believers and skeptics... and that helps nobody
4. Believe me - if you think active posters / skeptics on ATS are tough on these videos... just think how the "real world" would treat them...

(edited for grammar!)

[edit on 3-9-2009 by askbaby]

posted on Sep, 3 2009 @ 04:06 PM
This video is interesting,

posted on Sep, 3 2009 @ 04:08 PM
Let me just clear something up. I am not a skeptic but i think of myself as a logical believer. It does not take a skeptic to pick a video like this to shreads.

posted on Sep, 3 2009 @ 04:11 PM
reply to post by zaiger

Zaiger - I apologize if you think I was casting you as a Skeptic... sorry.

I am however an unwilling skeptic, until proven otherwise! I just want someone to prove to me, and then I'll be the strongest believer... I cannot wait for that day!

posted on Sep, 3 2009 @ 04:11 PM

Originally posted by Phage
Tumbling satellites "blink" as they tumble.

The satellite did not change direction. Look at the motion of the clouds. First they are going from right to left, then from left to right. Unless the clouds suddenly changed direction, the camera rotated.

[edit on 9/3/2009 by Phage]

I agree. It's the camera that is rotating giving you an illusion of the object turning. That link was extremely helpful and informative, I suggest you follow it.

Thank you Phage for providing very useful input in a civil and usually comedic manner.

posted on Sep, 3 2009 @ 04:12 PM
The flashing is very regular in frequency so id put my money on Phage's tumbling satellite theory.

posted on Sep, 3 2009 @ 04:13 PM
reply to post by JohnnyAnonymous

I do appreciate your feedback Johnny, I'm not trying to convey my personal belief onto people but to push some out of their comfort zone to question certain aspect of life that many "skeptics (logical/left brain)" refuse to see. Sometimes absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

I did intentionally say "skeptics try gain" as a "fun" approach to have people such as your self discuss your opinion, since the last video was dismissed by some as bird, yet NO one provided any evidence (videos/images) as to say why (other then "it looks likes birds flapping its wings".

Just because we like to find out about the UFO doesn't not mean it has to be this dreadful/aggressive conversation (which is the impression I'm getting from some of ATS members). Some may take the header of this and last thread offensively, but some (such as me) take it as a "challenge"! I am NOT forcing anyone to read my thread, yet leave it here to be discussed.

There were "some" good feedback regarding the last object, but most people just reply saying "it's a bird" .... to me that's simply naive. You were one of the few people that actually spend time analyzing it and come up with "reasons" why you thought this was not a UFO and few others, which i took with great respect and ponder on.

Just because a video is from "youtube" or some other website doesn't make it a bad/good video... video is a video, the content is more important at times. Sometimes that's all we got to play with! Why not take it with a grain of salt and cheer up a little!? Why take it with such harsh consecouneses of it being right/wrong!

When I studied philosophy at times I disagreed with other peoples opinion (vise versa), but end of the day it was the discussions/debates that the joy came from, not that I was wrong/right!

I may have my personal belief (which we are NOT alone in this universe from my own life experience) but that doesn't mean I can't question others on their belief, isn't that how we learn and grow?

posted on Sep, 3 2009 @ 04:20 PM
reply to post by askbaby

Hey, not disagreeing with you. The problem is "prove" what I my find provable mybe different form the next person. Like I said before, we see life they way we're trained to see it, it is matter of perception.

I posted this video to try to build my case for the last video!

If you disagreed with the last video, I wanted to know how you would disagree wit this video! But you do have some good points on this thread, note taken!

posted on Sep, 3 2009 @ 04:22 PM
Again, the problem here (or the challenge, depending how you want to look at it) is to provide some kind of positive proof of something. Even what you might consider to be the "best" possible outcome, us not knowing for sure if the thing is a satellite or a bird or a plane or whatever, still only leaves us with an "I don't know."

Is your point that there are things flying around in the night sky that we don't know what are? I don't know of anybody who disagrees with that. There are unknown things flying around. Hooray! Satisfied?

So now what? What are they? Are you able to provide any decent evidence that can work to positively (not circumstantially) prove exactly what these things are? Because if you can't, we're right back to assuming they're mundane, or as I said, at the most, "we don't know." Which doesn't mean "aliens" or "time travelers," or an airplane we don't recognize. It just means ignorance.

And we're hoping for something a little more satisfying than ignorance.

new topics

top topics

<<   2  3 >>

log in