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.

 

Spectacular UFO over France!

page: 3
39
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 1 2009 @ 09:10 PM
link   
I don't know.
I mean, how long was that duration? Four minutes?

How slow are those planes flying?
I mean, the luminosity appeared pretty constant, at least to my untrained eye, for most of the duration except for once when they dimmed suddenly to nothing.

So yeah, a light on the nose of the planes would explain such a thing if they immediately turned away from the camera, but for most of the time the nose was pointed right AT the camera.

Yet they never passed overhead.

I think that if it was a formation of planes, the videographer realized it and edited the video in such a way to perpetuate a hoax.

Someone translated the vid's dialogue and mentioned that the witnesses reported a sound.
I'd like to hear more about that.

I mean, these certainly weren't jets flying in formation. Prop planes, if anything. Yet during the zoom outs we see that they are actually quite some distance from the person filming.

Could you even hear the planes? If that is what they were?

I don't know.

OR...

OR...

This is a pretty nice editing job and planted dialogue.

Wouldn't surprise me at all, actually.

The thing that kills me is that there is an explanation for everything nowadays...

We have lots of cases on record of things that are genuinely unexplainable. So we search for the next one. But we can't find them because with modern technology, ALL of this stuff is explainable in or way or another.




posted on Oct, 1 2009 @ 09:16 PM
link   
I can't wait to hear what the skeptics have to say.
It's swamp gas! lol.



posted on Oct, 1 2009 @ 09:51 PM
link   
Why do most of the UFO videos always take place at night?



posted on Oct, 1 2009 @ 10:32 PM
link   
Planes? Yea.. I don't think so. Helicopters? I could buy that more.. but not really.

At 2:10 in the video.. please explain that.



posted on Oct, 1 2009 @ 10:50 PM
link   
the lights look like they are flickering like chinese lanterns



posted on Oct, 1 2009 @ 11:32 PM
link   
Again, seen tons of these never seen a video of a "UFO" actually taking off, or flying away other than just fading out.

I wouldn't be surprised if its local university engineer kids having fun. I know i've been part of certain groups of engineer students planning on putting UFO's up.



posted on Oct, 2 2009 @ 04:33 AM
link   
reply to post by nablator
 


Agreed it is Patrouille de France.

Number of lights (8)/planes (8) matches. Formation matches. One big light at the nose of the plane confirmed. Planes headed straight for camera confirmed. Mention of sound in the video confirmed. And don't forget the fact that these guys are good. I mean really good. they do things with planes that seem to be close to suicide on a daily basis flying at times with only a meter or two to spare.

just a small example of these guys

www.youtube.com...

also note at some point they show a formation 6 planes in the middle and one on both sides (when they head straight for the camera.). Same formation also at the beginning of the so called UFO video.

Its amazing tough they fly like the whole formation is one big plane.

[edit on 2/10/2009 by Maestro28]



posted on Oct, 2 2009 @ 06:35 AM
link   
Looks like a normal 747 with full lights on if i'm honest !



posted on Oct, 2 2009 @ 06:42 AM
link   

Originally posted by EvolvedMinistry
And just because you provided links for your guess work, does not mean that it should be taken more seriously than anyone else's theories.

This has been investigated, not by me, but by many french ufologists. The lunatic fringe, as always, is in denial, but serious investigators have reached the opposite conclusion.
- The date/location matches the PAF (Patrouille Aérienne de France)
- The base commander responded to several ufologists by e-mail, confirming it.
- The number of lights, sound and flight pattern is consistent with the PAF jets.
What else does anyone need?

Every month, someone finds this video on YouTube and posts it here without proper attribution and date to make it look new and mysterious. It is time to stop the lunacy.



posted on Oct, 2 2009 @ 07:04 AM
link   
reply to post by abraxasmu
 


Because during the night it's harder to identify things.



posted on Oct, 2 2009 @ 08:40 AM
link   
i want to be on the great lakes one day and see some object fly out of it. because it has happened before but i have not been one to witness it yet



posted on Oct, 3 2009 @ 09:38 AM
link   
This is weak.
Stop for a moment and think, why would a space ship have lights?



posted on Oct, 3 2009 @ 01:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by theversifier
This is weak.
Stop for a moment and think, why would a space ship have lights?


Exactly, its not a space ship, its an aircraft.
Theories go that high voltage is involved.
Thus light shows up in the air at various spots.
See some high voltage demos on youtube.
The blue is ether light perhaps and white is some kind of
air static light.



posted on Oct, 3 2009 @ 09:00 PM
link   
i really don't like these dark vids with just lights. It doesn't tell me much.



posted on Oct, 5 2009 @ 02:39 AM
link   

Originally posted by nablator
This has been investigated, not by me, but by many french ufologists. The lunatic fringe, as always, is in denial, but serious investigators have reached the opposite conclusion.
- The date/location matches the PAF (Patrouille Aérienne de France)
- The base commander responded to several ufologists by e-mail, confirming it.
- The number of lights, sound and flight pattern is consistent with the PAF jets.
What else does anyone need?

Every month, someone finds this video on YouTube and posts it here without proper attribution and date to make it look new and mysterious. It is time to stop the lunacy.


First of all, I'd like to say thank you for doing some digging. You did a better job than I did, because my search didn't turn up the very informative text "Observation sur apt dans le vaucluse le 4 juillet 2008 - un cas identifié" (in French).

www.les-repas-ufologiques.com...

Nevertheless, unless you've got exclusive right to the truth, you cannot make that statement.

You have presented a theory that this phenomenon is in fact the Patrouille de France (PAF). Nothing more nothing less. The elements indicating that this is the case are insignificant IMO.

I'll try to explain to the readers that do not speak French why this is so.

The incident took place on the 4th of July 2008 in the Pays d'Apt, in the south east of France.

I've chosen some excerpts from video amateur Robert Depetris' witness account (from the local newspaper "La Provence"):

"These lights, which were horizontal during a few seconds, gave off no sounds. There was complete silence."

Let's see now, 8 or more Alpha jets roaring over the night sky, and there's complete silence? That's a bit odd, wouldn't you say?

"The 4 lights, perfectly static, returns. Suddenly. Without a sound. Then the formation seems to move. It takes an angle of 30º. The lights double in the sky, the lean gets stronger and stronger to become horizontal. There's no longer 6 lights, but 12 slightly over Mourre Negre, certain of them invisible to the naked eye. The "constellation" takes the very clear shape of a parallelepiped triangle ... In an instant, the triangle blacks out and disappears."

It just doesn't seem like he's observing an airshow, does it? What about these lights going on and off abruptly? If we were looking at airplanes flying in and out of our field of vision, they should appear to us gradually, at least some of them, fade in and fade out.
We can assume that the pilots aren't turning their nose lights (each Alpha jet is equipped with a search light in the nose) on and off, that would be about as intelligent as to turn your lights on and off while driving on the highway a 100mph, or close your eyes while driving into a busy intersection.

According to the spokesman for the PAF, their jets fly with red and green blinking lights at night, an anti-collision device. How come we never see any of that during 4 minutes of video? We're talking about the Top Gun team of French aviation, the creme de la creme of pilots that do the most daunting manouvers, right? So are we watching the PAF flying straight at us for 4 minutes plus with their search lights aimed at us, even when they split up in a new formation?
I find that odd, because when the two lights detach themselves and descends in a curve, are they flying side-ways in that case?

Let's return to the witnesses. (to be continued)

[edit on 5-10-2009 by Heliocentric]



posted on Oct, 5 2009 @ 02:40 AM
link   
Another person a few kilometers away had a similar experience two days earlier. Ludovic (also interviewed by the local newspaper) tells us the following:
"I was standing in front of a company in the east of Apt. Five lights were blinking calmly just above my head, at roughly ten meters hight. They formed a circular arc. Suddenly, they started turning on themselves, only to take off towards the east in a matter of seconds. They reappeared three times, in the same spot in the sky, in a 15 minute period, only to disappear in the same manner."

One day later, Ludovic sees the objects again in the same place.
"It was like a saucer, like in the movies, I'm certain of it. A weird thing, floating through the sky, I'm still aghast."

I think it's pretty clear Ludovic wasn't watching the Patrouille de France flying over his head, it would have appeared totally different. He doesn't think he was seeing jets, or helicopters, or chinese lanterns, or bugs flying throught the air, or planet Venus or the ISS.
Robert Depetris doesn't think he was watching jets either, and the reporter of the article clearly places the incident in the realms of the unexplained.
The only ones that think the witnesses were watching jets is a small band of internet debunkers, who takes upon themselves to freely interpret or ignore witness accounts so that it fits with their theories.

Are we just going to ignore what the witnesses states, just because it doesn't fit with certain people's concept of what is possible or not, who also believes themselves to have monopoly on the truth?

This is what they've stated officially that they saw. Either you call them liars, or you invent a new theory that corresponds with their observations.

It is NOT established that the PAF was in the area, rather the contrary. It is established that they were NOT flying that night.

The Newspaper article clearly states that when the spokesman for PAF was asked about the whereabouts of PAF the night of the 4th, they confirmed that PAF was not flying.

A response to the article states that "it so happens that" there was a flight that night after all, and yes they probably flew over that area where the lights appeared... but PAF does not confirm this!

So it's hearsay, it's just some guy on the internet claiming to have inside information, saying that's the way it was.

Nothing more, until PAF officially confirms his version.

Equally, close by airbase 125 d'Istres confirms:
"Nothing is noted. No official flight is recorded." The standing Officer assures the reporter. "Had there been any flights in the area, you would have heard the noise."
Of course they would have heard noise. And of course this military airbase would have known - or been able to pick up on their radars - if the Patrouille de France had been flying in the vicinity.

Even if it was the PAF, against all probability, it does not explain the behavior of the lights, or what was behind the observations made the 2 and the 3rd of July. Does that not count, simply because it wasn't filmed?

Conclusion: The "Patrouille de France" theory to explain the incident can be excluded.

[edit on 5-10-2009 by Heliocentric]



posted on Oct, 5 2009 @ 04:30 AM
link   
I live in France, and speak French. I can say that the audio does not seen 'forced' as it often does in some staged videos, so in honesty I think that the viewers genuinely could not explain what they we watching. However, this does not mean it was unexplainable.

Over here they are very open about UFOs, with France being the first to open 'secret' government files, politicians open to discuss the idea of UFO and aliens without ridicule. People are so much more pragmatic, and see things as they are. It is of no surprise to me that if emailed, an air base commander, or a commander of the PAF would have responded. It would also be very unlikely that they would lie, as this would be a matter of public record for the future, and well French people take this very seriously.

If he responded that the PAF planes were there, at that moment in time, on that particular day, they were there. If they were there, there would be lights, some noise maybe, and well, these guys can FLY. This is not some useless aerobatics team, they are pin point in accuracy, timing, and an elite.

If we take that as truth, why would we therefore look at another explanation?

As for the witnesses, lets be honest, not everyone makes a good witness. This 'Ludovic', sees 'a saucer 10 meters above his head or something', lets get real. It reminds me of the wind farm incident in the UK where people reported 'octopus like tentacles' swooping from the sky, saucers, lights, aliens, heck if we asked enough people I am sure some would say they saw the Staypuft Marshmallow Man up there.

One video of light, one dubious witness, does not a UFO make. Especially when we have a reasonable, logical and rational explanation put forward by someone with expert knowledge.

Every witness comes to the table with their own preconceptions, and their own agenda, even if they don't mean to have them/it;

I used to study law, and it is amazing how inconsistent stories can be. For example;

A person sees another person running down a road, dressed in red. The Police turn up to ask questions, and the person then thinks that the person must be a criminal. The Police asks if they see the person running from a specific car, even if the person was running from the direction of the specific car but not linked to it, or even running past it, yes, they were running in that direction. The Police ask if they were wearing a red football top. The witness says that they were wearing a top of the same color red that possibly matched. The police asked if they had their face covered, the witness remembers a hat, that when questioned could possibly have been a mask pulled up... Suddenly, we have a criminal wearing a mask and a red football jersey running from a car that had recently be broken into... In reality, the 'person' could have been an innocent jogger, wearing a red coat and hat because it was a cold day.


The fact 'Ludovic' was interviewed by a 'UFO' investigator immediately colors things in my mind, as the human mind wants to make sense of things if doesn't understand... hence - lights in the sky, interviewed by UFO investigator = UFO. From there, you always have the perception due to the media that UFO = Saucer.

Mix into this a liking for Pastis, maybe prescription drugs, heck it was late at night, you have infinite variables;

For me, knowing France, if a member of the armed forces says it was the PAF, it was probably that. I am not for adding 2+2 and making 5 just because 'we all want to believe'.

Just my 0.02€

[edit on 5-10-2009 by Fraank Fontaine]



posted on Oct, 5 2009 @ 05:10 AM
link   

Originally posted by Fraank Fontaine
If he responded that the PAF planes were there, at that moment in time, on that particular day, they were there.

If we take that as truth, why would we therefore look at another explanation?


No frank, we don't take that as truth, because PAF has not said that they were there, and when asked by the local press, they even denied it.

We don't take it as truth, because it does not correspond with the witness testimonies, nor the video.

Therefore we have to look for another explanation.


Originally posted by Fraank Fontaine
As for the witnesses, lets be honest, not everyone makes a good witness. This 'Ludovic', sees 'a saucer 10 meters above his head or something', lets get real.


So like any half-assed debunker, you refute his testimony because it doesn't seem credible in your eyes. That's exactly the type of arrogance I rejected in my earlier post.
Okay, all witnesses are not credible, but it is not up to you to speculate on this witness' credibility, because you don't know anything about him. All the speculation about him drinking, etc, is but speculation.

He claims to have seen several lights abov him at 10 meters height. Don't you think a normal human being can make out the difference between that and a group of jets flying overhead?


Originally posted by Fraank Fontaine
One video of light, one dubious witness, does not a UFO make.


Oh yes it does. With more corroborating material it just becomes a stronger case, that's all.



posted on Oct, 5 2009 @ 09:15 AM
link   
Im not buying the plai8nes theory, i mean for the time they are straight at the camera, they dont seem to be making up much ground, they seem stationary, not because they are flying towards us because they dont move at all, good footage, not saying its E.T but it dosent seem like plaines either to me.



posted on Oct, 5 2009 @ 10:26 AM
link   
reply to post by GezinhoKiko
 

I have seen aeroplanes approaching the Lisbon airport when they still several kilometres from Lisbon, and they can be seen for maybe 10 minutes before becoming recognisable as aeroplanes.

If these were planes making some manoeuvres they would not be seen when on their returning path (supposing they were moving in one direction then going back, moving again in the same direction, etc.), and they would appear again when facing the camera.

A slower moving aeroplane could be seen for a very long time.



new topics

top topics



 
39
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join