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.

 

*ANOTHER UFO video - Skeptics try again!!

page: 2
4
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 3 2009 @ 04:22 PM
link   

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

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]


Good points there Phage, thank you for the link. Learn something new everyday!




posted on Sep, 3 2009 @ 04:23 PM
link   
reply to post by askbaby
 


No worries, i did not think you were making me out to look like a skeptik you made my friend list.


The point was this video is bogus.



posted on Sep, 3 2009 @ 04:24 PM
link   
That was odd. I noticed right off the bat that the lit time was way longer than the dark time. It seems like the lit time was several seconds and the dark time was only a fraction of that. If it was due to tumbling, then the lit and dark times should have been equal. I did not notice any turns though. Just camera movement.



posted on Sep, 3 2009 @ 04:25 PM
link   
reply to post by Nohup
 


You missed my point! I'm NOT trying to prove anything... I'm trying to understand what this is, like you!

I have my personal belief and that's where that's going to stay!



posted on Sep, 3 2009 @ 04:26 PM
link   
reply to post by groingrinder
 


If tumbling is the reason behind that, then maybe based on earths movement and angle of the camera it created irregular bright/dark pattern!



posted on Sep, 3 2009 @ 04:30 PM
link   

Originally posted by freighttrain
reply to post by Nohup
 


You missed my point! I'm NOT trying to prove anything...


Then why have "skeptics try again!!" in your thread title. The less you make declaritive statements the less you will have to take your foot out of your mouth.
But you know what they say about eating crow, it goes down better with a smile.



posted on Sep, 3 2009 @ 04:52 PM
link   
reply to post by JohnnyAnonymous
 


Hi Johnny...well put there dear chap!



reply to post by freighttrain
 


Great vids & threads, fun too.

Cheers...nerb

[edit on 3/9/2009 by nerbot]



posted on Sep, 3 2009 @ 05:24 PM
link   
reply to post by groingrinder
 


You are assuming the more reflective surface is the the same size as less reflective surface.



posted on Sep, 3 2009 @ 05:36 PM
link   
As I watched the first video that was posted I noticed a similar object at, I believe 45 or 46 seconds into video, shooting up and to the right. Not sure what that was??? I personally enjoy these videos. No matter what they are, they are interesting to watch. Thank you for posting.



posted on Sep, 3 2009 @ 06:05 PM
link   

Originally posted by zaiger

Originally posted by freighttrain
reply to post by Nohup
 

You missed my point! I'm NOT trying to prove anything...


Then why have "skeptics try again!!" in your thread title. The less you make declaritive statements the less you will have to take your foot out of your mouth. But you know what they say about eating crow, it goes down better with a smile.


Yeah. Instead of "Skeptics try again!!" how about if you just ask nicely, "Ideas?" That's a lot less confrontational.



posted on Sep, 3 2009 @ 06:39 PM
link   

Originally posted by zaiger

Originally posted by freighttrain
reply to post by Nohup
 


You missed my point! I'm NOT trying to prove anything...


Then why have "skeptics try again!!" in your thread title. The less you make declaritive statements the less you will have to take your foot out of your mouth.
But you know what they say about eating crow, it goes down better with a smile.


Like I said before man... you take it as how you see fit! If you take that as an offensive/aggressive statement, it just shows your insecurity. It's very simple... read it as it says... "Skeptics, try again!"

My thread (which again, some of you did not understand) is to state that this object is similar to the previous object I posted. The main point I was trying to make (which I already wrote few times now) is to differentiate the "glow" pattern to make a point that this is NOT a bird!

You then make me Phoe because you don't like how I post my thread!?

Grow up!



posted on Sep, 3 2009 @ 06:44 PM
link   
reply to post by Nohup
 


Well, like I said. Didn't think bunch of insecure people were gonna jump on my a** and start attacking me on this. Oh well... guess that's how some people are!

I could have said the same thing "Skeptics try again" in a different environment and I bet I would have got different response! It shows peoples true color!

So much for being blunt, I guess I now know how some people treat each other on ATS!



posted on Sep, 3 2009 @ 06:44 PM
link   
reply to post by j.r.c.b.
 


You're very welcome!



posted on Sep, 3 2009 @ 06:46 PM
link   
reply to post by Phage
 


Another great point!



posted on Sep, 3 2009 @ 06:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by freighttrain
The main point I was trying to make (which I already wrote few times now) is to differentiate the "glow" pattern to make a point that this is NOT a bird!
Does that mean that you agree that the other video shows a bird?



posted on Sep, 3 2009 @ 07:29 PM
link   
reply to post by ArMaP
 


LOL, I was open to it, but no! I do think it's intelligently controlled object (UFO)!

However based on some good points brought up by Phage, JohnnyAnonymous (even though he sounded a tad frustrated with my post
) and few others I do think this new video I posted is a satellite reflecting sun (which I've never seen before in a NV)!


[edit on 3-9-2009 by freighttrain]



posted on Sep, 3 2009 @ 08:20 PM
link   
It is the Flasher Satellite, a rogue Satellite than failed proper orbit. usually you will see two flashes in a ten second period or less apart.

my.hwy.com.au...

[edit on 3-9-2009 by smurfy]



posted on Sep, 3 2009 @ 10:04 PM
link   
reply to post by freighttrain
 


Hey man - i understand your excitement, but I would never never never say "skeptics debunk this!" unless you are filming a UFO, you walk onto it, fly to Mars and come home, still recording! You're going to get torn apart, AND you didnt even post interesting ones this guy has. He isnt that great a source anyway, these videos are from him setting up his nightvision to his TV, then recording his TV screen with a camcorder, then they get compressed on YouTube and then we see it. I thought this video of his was interesting - Flock of birds? 10 satellites?? Maybe its those critters I keep hearing about? Eh, CGI, that covers it.


His videos remind me of one of my sightings of something weird -



[edit on 3-9-2009 by ziggyproductions05]



posted on Sep, 3 2009 @ 10:12 PM
link   

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

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 have to agree with the phage master on this one. Satellite.

Anyone know what the two particularly bright celestial objects it passed by were?



posted on Sep, 3 2009 @ 10:48 PM
link   

Originally posted by freighttrain
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!?


Well...

This is where you and I will differ (amongst other trains of thoughts). Being a former guy from the Television medium (and a 'amateur' ufologist). a video is not just a video. Anything that is published in a website has a lot of compression put into it to lower the size of it for easier loading and buffering. That compression creates artifacts and pixelization that degenerates the video by sometimes up to 80%. the only way to 'truly' analyze any footage is from off the original 'raw' capture.

Here's an example of how much degradation happens when converting (for a posting here at ATS from one of our investigations). I can tell you since I was the one that shot the footage in IR, that the quality of the footage is at least 50% decreased by the compression necessary to have it posted. And coincidentally they are of satellites (that we are 99% sure of).

media.abovetopsecret.com...

So your statement about it doesn't matter where the video comes from and that we should focus on the content is a untrue statement.. the quality of the footage has everything to do with it as the content can become a skewed and distorted due to the compression alone.



new topics

top topics



 
4
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join