white ufo filmed in HD

Originally posted by maxxsee
reply to post by Anamnesis

 

The thread might be a bit big now. You would have read that I zoomed in after the filming inside a program in thread. Original footage is zoomed out.


[edit on 23-11-2009 by maxxsee]

It's cool Maxxsee. If you want to believe it's real then by all means, do so. I'm just extremely skeptical and it will take something more to convince me that your film is legit. Do you have others you can post?

reply to post by Anamnesis

I actually did post a video of an object size atleast a few meters that appear to fly behind a mountain Extremely fast.

No one has commented about this object. It is not very sharp since it is several kilometers away, but you can clearly see it appears to move behind the mountain, at least that is what I see.

Would love a second appinion on this footage.
It is posted a few pages back with 3 screens aswell (one embossed)

Originally posted by maxxsee

Sure here is the spot where it was filmed.
Ljungskile, 45931 LJUNGSKILE
I think this is the direction I filmed in, I'm not positive, kind of hard to see from above. The starting direction is correct however.
a map of the place:
i47.tinypic.com...

Was this so difficult to post,

edit: The camera that was used, which exact model/make has been used as the zoom and distance of "net" needs to be considered.

[edit on 23-11-2009 by tristar]

Originally posted by maxxsee
And even if the pole was dark, one would think it would show up in inverted or some other filter since it is infront of the flag somewhere.

A dark object in front of another dark object is very hard to see, that's the whole basis behind camouflage, using the same (or similar) colours to look like what's behind/around.

An object of any colour in front of a similar coloured object will not show on an image with so little detail as a frame from a video, and inverting the colours does not do any miracle to show one object more than the other.

Imagine a white object in front of a white wall. Inverting the colours will give you a black object in front of a black wall, you gain nothing with that operation.

The same happens with the emboss filter, it only looks at differences in brightness to try to find edges, but if the differences are too subtle it will show nothing.

That's why you cannot see what I think it's an insect in front of the trees (and not behind the mountain), because they have the same brightness.

Wow. This thread is huge now!

It's either a UFO or not a UFO.

Now, I would go to this location again and perhaps find out if these people have an outdoor area, a patio, and umbrella/seating setup.

I mean ring their doorbell and ask, Hi I think I may have videotaped a UFO from afar, but I'm not really sure because it could just be some other object. Now they might just look at you and be like WTF but ask:

Do you happen to have an outside area with an umbrella seating area?

I mean what if you go back there and there umbrella is down, then you can take a picture/ video of that.

Originally posted by ArMaP
The same happens with the emboss filter, it only looks at differences in brightness to try to find edges, but if the differences are too subtle it will show nothing.

Maybe maybe not. It would have to be really well camoflauged then. I can see your point though.
You have to admit, the color of pole would have to blend in very well for it not to show up at all.
I would bet there is no pole personally, just seems to unlikely it would blend in so well and that the color would be black.

Originally posted by ArMaP
That's why you cannot see what I think it's an insect in front of the trees (and not behind the mountain), because they have the same brightness.

Insect infront of trees?
Are you are referring to the other ufo clip?
If you are, the object is totally black. The trees are not that black. You should therefore have seen it infront of trees if it would have gone there I believe. I'm not sure, but I guess an analysis would proove this quite easily of the 17 mb clip.
I've seen many of these objects that seem to go behind trees and other structures etc.

Originally posted by tristar
[The camera that was used, which exact model/make has been used as the zoom and distance of "net" needs to be considered.

Canon HG10. Already posted this aswell..

reply to post by UFOAlienLover

Might have to do that next year during summer time when I'm in the area. =)

reply to post by Anamnesis

Here is the screen in another video.
What is that thing?

For an enlarged version click below
i49.tinypic.com...
It showed up in the last screen of a video I filmed.


[edit on 23-11-2009 by maxxsee]

Originally posted by maxxsee
It would have to be really well camoflauged then. I can see your point though.
You have to admit, the color of pole would have to blend in very well for it not to show up at all.
I would bet there is no pole personally, just seems to unlikely it would blend in so well and that the color would be black.

There is no need for the colour to be that similar to the background for it not to be seen, there are several things affecting that.

One of the first frames of the no-sound, only text added, version you posted, for example, only had 20573 colours, and that area with the two buildings, flag, pole and white object only has around 2500 colours. That specific area bellow the white object has less than 100 different colours, most of them just changes in colour with very little changes in brightness, so a very dark green is not exactly noticeable in front of a very dark brown, for example.

Insect infront of trees?
Are you are referring to the other ufo clip?

Yes, sorry for not specifying it.

If you are, the object is totally black. The trees are not that black. You should therefore have seen it infront of trees if it would have gone there I believe.

No, the object is not black, in one of the frames where it shows it appears as almost 49% grey, far from the 0% that represents black.

Another thing that I always forget in cases like this (but that I have to remember in the future), is that we cannot know what other people see, sometimes a badly adjust monitor may hide some subtle differences and give a completely distorted view of things.

I use these two images to see if my monitor is well adjusted.





You should be able to distinguish at least the top row of shades of white or grey from the middle white or black area.

reply to post by maxxsee


Hi there

To begin with, based on your image indicating your angle of footage that would mean your viewing distance is from 3200m to 4000m. Given that information the type/model of the camera used does need to be verified.

Again your angle of view as indicated by your image with red arrow seems to have a discrepancy based on the structural buildings of that particular area which you have indicated the footage was taken from.

Lastly, the structural buildings of that particular do seem to have a white structure similar to what you have shot on your video.


Conclusion:

You seem to have been over enthusiastic or simply thought that within ATS reside a group of people who eat was is being served. That being said and moving on, your angle of footage in comparison to your image showing us were you shot the footage do not match up according to the structures based on satellite images.

Also there are white structures which do resemble what you have shot and all indication are that it is a structural object built into a holiday resort Hotel/Motel were people would sit to view scenery during holiday season.

Lets not forget, this is a tourist attraction area and obviously tourists during summer or winter season would rather sit outside to view the lake than sit indoors within their rented rooms.

Case closed, all MIB have been recalled.


Sincerely

Tristar.

VIDEO ANALYSIS UPDATE:
OK everybody,

This has taken a bit longer than expected. I had shown the video to two non objective and unbiased people. Both were to do their video analysis of it.

I have only received an analysis back from one so far so I decided to go ahead and post those results for all to see, since from the looks of it, the other person is going to agree... I happen to agree with the results myself.


As per request I will not be uploading the video for the public to see.

Here is what was found: ( Please note, what is written below is not my words but the words of one of the analyzers.)

1 - The video does not look altered.
2 - The audio does not sound suspicious, but as I do not speak Swedish I don't know what is said.
3 - There is no way of distinguishing what's in front, the flag pole or the object, the brightness of both objects is too similar.
4 - The luminosity is consistent white the whole scene, stronger from the left side (west) and weaker on the right (east) side, there is no noticeable "glow".
5 - There is no noticeable movement of the object or the trees to help understand what's in front of what.
6 - The object does not show a smooth surface, it looks like it shows two ridges and corresponding lower areas between those ridges, just like an umbrella.
7 - The bird passes between the camera and the object, showing that the object was not that close to the camera.
8 - If the object is close to the house (like an umbrella would be), and considering that the zoom makes things look closer than they are, the object is something like 2 metres in diameter, consistent with an umbrella.

So there you have it folks...From what we can tell the video itself has not been tampered with. There is no CGI and there is nothing suspicious in the audio.

I will post my own personal thoughts after this. I do not want to post them within this post to keep it impartial.


[edit on 23-11-2009 by gimme_some_truth]

Now if you do not mind I would like to post a few personal thoughts that have nothing to do with the video analysis.

My initial thought was that it was extremely suspicious that the OP did not want to upload the full raw footage with sound. I thought that perhaps there was something in the audio that might " Give him ( I assume him... If not I apologize) away... As you now see though there was nothing out of the ordinary in the audio.

I still do not understand the extreme hesitance to upload that footage but I guess that is going to remain a mystery....

Another thought that I had on a strictly personal level which has nothing to do with the analysis is that the analysis proves the video has not been tampered with... But who is to say that the OP did not know it was there and thought it resembled a UFO and decided to film it?

Then there is the thought that perhaps the OP truly does think it is a UFO and meant well all along. I just don't know what to think....

In a way we are sort of right back where we started... which I find to be a bit frustrating...

So what we seem to have is a video that either is a hoax or is not... I want to give the OP the benefit of the doubt and say that it was just a case of mistaking what the object actually was.... But I guess I will never know for sure.

AGAIN, let me make clear that this post has nothing to do with the video analysis and is simply my personal thoughts on the entire thread.

reply to post by ArMaP

Is your final verdict that that the fast moving object would not have been visible moving infront of the hill?

You were correct about it not being black. I take that back.
It is more grayish.
Here is a screens of same color inside trees copied directly from object:
i48.tinypic.com...
Looks pretty visible to me. Or what do you say?

Originally posted by gimme_some_truth
Now if you do not mind I would like to post a few personal thoughts that have nothing to do with the video analysis.

No problem at all =)

So what we seem to have is a video that either is a hoax or is not... I want to give the OP the benefit of the doubt and say that it was just a case of mistaking what the object actually was.... But I guess I will never know for sure.

Hmm what do you mean here?
Can't understand... benefit of the doubt say...?
I'm from sweden don't understand this line.

reply to post by tristar

The pictures of the map might be old.

Are you telling me I'm lying about the loaction filmed?

You can't be more wrong.

reply to post by gimme_some_truth


Thank you for getting this done for all of us ... it is very much appreciated.

Now it is up to each of us to make our own conclusion on what this object is.

When I take my Razor to it I come to the conclusion that ...

... it is an umbrella

All in all, a very interesting thread that, to me, ended up showcasing the different faces, both the negative and the positive, of ATS as it is today.



[edit on 23/11/09 by Horza]

Originally posted by maxxsee
Hmm what do you mean here?
Can't understand... benefit of the doubt say...?
I'm from sweden don't understand this line.

No worries. To give some one the benefit of the doubt means that you are just going to trust they are telling the truth.

So in other words I am saying that I am going to assume that you had no intention of hoaxing because I like to assume the best of people.

Now that is not to say that I am not sure that maybe you mistook the object for something else, it is just to say that I trust your intentions were good.

[edit on 23-11-2009 by gimme_some_truth]

Originally posted by gimme_some_truth
( Please note, what is written below is not my words but the words of one of the analyzers.)

1 - The video does not look altered.
2 - The audio does not sound suspicious, but as I do not speak Swedish I don't know what is said.
3 - There is no way of distinguishing what's in front, the flag pole or the object, the brightness of both objects is too similar.
4 - The luminosity is consistent white the whole scene, stronger from the left side (west) and weaker on the right (east) side, there is no noticeable "glow".
5 - There is no noticeable movement of the object or the trees to help understand what's in front of what.
6 - The object does not show a smooth surface, it looks like it shows two ridges and corresponding lower areas between those ridges, just like an umbrella.
7 - The bird passes between the camera and the object, showing that the object was not that close to the camera.
8 - If the object is close to the house (like an umbrella would be), and considering that the zoom makes things look closer than they are, the object is something like 2 metres in diameter, consistent with an umbrella.

[edit on 23-11-2009 by gimme_some_truth]

Oh you gave to other ppl?
Wasn't aware of this.

So this is some other persons analysis statements... Hmmm.

To answer it I guess I would have to see screens from the analysis showing from WHAT they draw their conclusions. Otherwise it is just empty words for me..
That said,

There is no way of distinguishing what's in front, the flag pole or the object, the brightness of both objects is too similar.

What??
Whouldn't an analysis confirm this??
It is obvious the pole is NOT nearly as birght white as the object. Therefore one would think determining that it is infront of pole would be an easy job........

The luminosity is consistent white the whole scene, stronger from the left side (west) and weaker on the right (east) side, there is no noticeable "glow".

Does the surface seem to reflect light? Or does it respond like soft fabric to the light?
This should be visible in a good analysis yes....?

The object does not show a smooth surface, it looks like it shows two ridges and corresponding lower areas between those ridges, just like an umbrella.

I would like to see several screens of this from different times in video. Showing clearly what ridges is talked about.
Also to counter that "just like an umbrella" how is the edges of the "umbrella" explained if these are indeed fabric hanging down with ridges. Is it flapping in the wind like it should in the wind. Could we see a clip of this movement in an enhancement?
Since the wind is moving the flag quite a bit.
How is the inward angle from both sides at same time of this hanging fabric at bottom explained IF it indeed would be an umbrella?

What about the pole was it found? and the V underneath the object, what about this?

If the object is close to the house (like an umbrella would be), and considering that the zoom makes things look closer than they are, the object is something like 2 metres in diameter, consistent with an umbrella.

If it isn't, which I think is pretty clear from my screen

it would mean it is pretty much bigger.

Also analysis of the screens of object infront of bush would be appreciated.

I'm not sure about this first analysis. Not too convincing in my view. I want some solid material and comments to the screens etc so that it can be determined. Or else we are just guessing, aren't we.



[edit on 23-11-2009 by maxxsee]

So it should be pretty obvious by this point that the OP doesn't care to regard actual critique of the video as anything but noise.

Maxxsee, what do you think the object is? You're very eager to shut down everything so far, so what do you think it is?

reply to post by EsSeeEye

I'm just trying to keep it real.
I am not interested in some amateurs personal feelings about the video. I want an analysis with screens etc so you can see from WHAT the conclusions are made. I have added many questions that are relevant in the "umbrella scenario" that need answering aswell.

To answer your question I am quite certain it is infront of the bush due to the sharp edge to right, which would be a Very strange place to put an umbrella. So I think it is something that is hovering or an object placed there to look like a ufo. I have a hard time believing the latter though since this is my summer place.



[edit on 23-11-2009 by maxxsee]

I would just like to say that in my opinion Max has been very patient and has put up with a LOT of abuse over this video. He posted it here as I believe in a sincere manner, hoping for some friendly and constructive comments. I think that it's something he truly believes to be an alien craft.

I personally would love for him to go talk to the people who live at the house above where this object was just to see what they say. But whether he does that or not I think that those of you who have accused him of intentionally waisting everyones time owe him an appology. The analysis is that he hasn't tampered with it.

gimme_some_truth, you say that we are back to square one but you were IMO, hoping to be able to prove that Max had altered the video in some way. So no matter what happened, Max had no way of winning in your eyes. If it was shown not to be tampered with, "We are back to square one." If it was shown to be tampered with, then you get to be the ultra super cool guy who nailed the hoaxer.

I'm not saying that what Max filmed was a craft of some kind, I'm also not saying that it isn't.

To be honest I agree that it looks very still like an inanimate object (maybe an umbrella).

As one of the newer members here at ATS I'm pretty disappointed in the amount of abuse that has been thrown at Max.

At the same time Max - I applaud you for your persistence. In My opinion until this is shown beyond a shadow of a doubt to be something I think you have a valid ufo video.

Yes it looks like an umbrella but none of your mud-slingers can prove it to be that.

I give you my best wishes in further study and verification of this video.