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.

 

white ufo filmed in HD

page: 23
12
<< 20  21  22    24  25  26 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 23 2009 @ 08:51 PM
link   
It's an umbrella... There's a surprise.
Like we needed a video analysis to tell us that.
And maxxsee.. I don't give you the benefit of the doubt.. You knew the moment you intentionally started filming this that it was too ambiguous to just call it hoax straight away.
i don't buy your schpeel for a second.

Anyway...on my mobile phone... I should be asleep.


Laters peeps


 
Posted Via ATS Mobile: m.abovetopsecret.com
 




posted on Nov, 23 2009 @ 08:53 PM
link   
reply to post by sagestranger
 

Thanks!
That might be true. I do hope the analysis will actually prove something. Showing it being infront of pole for example shouldn't be a hard thing to do if you knew what you were doing. That "can't be decided because colors are similar", just don't fly with me......



posted on Nov, 23 2009 @ 08:55 PM
link   
reply to post by blupblup
 

I'm looking forward to the proof and the answers to my questions regarding this "umbrella".



posted on Nov, 23 2009 @ 08:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by maxxsee
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.


I am in no way suggesting that your are lying, i am simply pointing out that the angle of view in comparison to the structures do not add up. You will also find a previous post of mine with in embedded image of the relative size of this structure in comparison to the Hotel/Motel which confirms what the analysis has described as to the dimensions of the white structure. I do feel that perhaps you were over enthusiastic and forced yourself to believe that something was there which obviously was but was not what you wanted it to be.

Here is the public interface of what you and everyone else has access to and then there is the back end of what is available. Link. Almost real time, well several seconds delay that is.



posted on Nov, 23 2009 @ 08:59 PM
link   
reply to post by tristar
 

Don't know the exact angle of filming. But the starting direction is correct.



posted on Nov, 23 2009 @ 09:12 PM
link   
reply to post by maxxsee
 


You've not explained what you believe the object to be. If you think it's not the obvious explanation of "umbrella", what is it? Do you believe it's an alien craft?

The reason I ask is because it seems to me that your perceptions are being altered by your beliefs. You don't see an umbrella because you want it to be an alien spaceship. The problem is that even if it's not an umbrella, that doesn't make it a spaceship, nor alien.

Maybe it's not a canvas umbrella, maybe it's hard plastic. Maybe the pole doesn't go straight down, and instead it's held aloft from above. Here's the variety a quick google image search gave me: Umbrellas

Just because one umbrella doesn't "fit" the image doesn't mean all umbrellas don't. And even if it's not an umbrella at all doesn't make "alien spaceship" next in line of probable contenders for what it actually is.

The lack of logic here is astounding. This kind of thing happens way too often for me to believe ATS is even the least bit worthy of its motto.



posted on Nov, 23 2009 @ 09:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by EsSeeEye
You've not explained what you believe the object to be. If you think it's not the obvious explanation of "umbrella", what is it? Do you believe it's an alien craft?

The reason I ask is because it seems to me that your perceptions are being altered by your beliefs. You don't see an umbrella because you want it to be an alien spaceship. The problem is that even if it's not an umbrella, that doesn't make it a spaceship, nor alien.

The thing is if ppl pass it off as just a normal umbrella. Then it should fit.

"If the shoe fits" ....

Which I don't think it does.
I just enhanced my own video with this screen.
I am now leaning towards that the pole SHOULD have been visible without a doubt since you can see the green CLEARLY behind it. It is NOT too dark att all. So we can strike that idea right now.
Watch this.


i47.tinypic.com...
Are you still saying a black pole wouldn't be visible????


[edit on 23-11-2009 by maxxsee]



posted on Nov, 23 2009 @ 09:37 PM
link   
Here is an example of what it might have looked like if there had been a black pole there.
i50.tinypic.com...
umbrella debunked



posted on Nov, 23 2009 @ 09:57 PM
link   
Original "enhanced" image from your last post:

Original "enhanced"


Something I noticed from your "enhanced" image:

Highlighted Supports


So, what we end up with is this little beauty:

MS paint!




Yes, that's a cruddy MS paint version, and for some reason the pngs wouldn't work as images (and I don't feel like adding them to the media onsite) but take a look at the area I highlighted, then check the original "enhanced" version. You can see the support poles. It's less "umbrella" and more "gazebo", but the idea is the same.



posted on Nov, 23 2009 @ 10:36 PM
link   
If your gonna says its not an umbrella because there is no post to hold it in the center of it.
Would it be possible that it could be an offset umbrella?



Source one
source 2

The post could be Behind the tree which would make it seam that its floating there since the post is not visible.



posted on Nov, 23 2009 @ 10:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by maxxsee
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 assure you that is not the case and actually am surprised that you are not interested since the results lean in your favor...

I am curious what makes you think it was analyzed by an "amateur" if you do not even know who analyzed it.... Seems like an unfair judgment to me....



posted on Nov, 23 2009 @ 10:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by sagestranger
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.


... Not so... As I promised I was going to provide an unbiased and non objective analysis. I did so by having other people do it. If I were to do it it would be biased.

I have openly stated that I suspect it was a hoax but no matter the results I would be honest and share them with everybody. I did just that. Maybe you should read my latest posts again. You may note that I am giving Maxxsee the benefit of the doubt and that I think there is no intentional hoax taking place.

Anybody who knows me on here knows that the second I make a mistake I am the first to man up, apologize and move on. I never had any intention of " being the super cool guy who nailed the hoaxer" and quite frankly do not appreciate the unwarranted accusation.

And we ARE back to square one. Because we are back to the point where it either is a hoax or it is not a hoax. That is the point we started off at... Thus we are back at square one.

My goal was to calm the thread down. I did. My next goal was to getting a copy of the full footage so we could move on. If it was a hoax then we would take care of it, if not, then we move to the next step...

The next step being, the members decide for them selves what to make of the analysis. That is all there is to it. There is no attempt to bust a hoaxer here. There is only an attempt to vette a thread and make things happen, besides name calling and accusations.

Again I wish to make it clear that your accusations or unwarranted and unappreciated. My only goal was to move the thread away from childish name calling and arguing and towards progress, which is exactly what I did.

We now can see that the video has not been tampered with and I believe there is no hoaxing taking place. I do think that Maxxsee is mistaken as to what the object is, but that is all there is too it.

Quite frankly I am disappointed that you see this as a game to be won or lost. No one has one or lost my friend. All that has happened is progress in a thread.

Good day.



posted on Nov, 23 2009 @ 10:51 PM
link   
reply to post by maxxsee
 


Maybe you have sent the original footage, to one person, and you have stated that you have terms, but why do you come on to a conspiracy forum, and ask for your footage to be analyzed, but will not produce what is asked for by the whole???

Why do you only want only one person to analyze your "un-edited" footage?

Why do you ask a forum moderator to have your raw footage analyzed, but then seem so disappointed when he had two independent people analyze the footage?


Oh you gave to other ppl? Wasn't aware of this. So this is some other persons analysis statements... Hmmm.


Why do you so feverishly retort against anyone with an opinion that differs from your own?

Why does an independent analysis just seem as:


Otherwise it is just empty words for me..


Why do you need to see screens from the analysis? You provided them



To answer it I guess I would have to see screens from the analysis showing from WHAT they draw their conclusions.


You came here and asked what others opinions are on your U.O. (not U.F.O., seeing as it is clearly not flying, but just a Unidentified Object) video, that was already edited in the first place.

Why do you feel so heavily (besides your moot point of its "in front of the pole" analysis), that everybody else is wrong?

Why do you feel that after 23 pages, everybody else is still wrong and you are right?

What makes you think it is an alien craft? (besides your moot point of its "in front of the pole")

If you truly, with all your heart believe you have filmed the "smoking gun" of UFO video, I am truly sorry for you and your paredolia. if not, you are Trolling and wasting server space.

Sorry to sound so harsh, but me(I'm a damn lurker for cryin out loud!) and many others have become increasingly frustrated with your way of stringing this thread into oblivion, and would like some answers from you or some justice from admin!


Awaiting answers...

*Rant over*



posted on Nov, 23 2009 @ 10:59 PM
link   
reply to post by EvilBat
 

Well, reading the thread, Im sure the OP will come back and say something along the lines of, "that type of technology to hold an umbrella up must not be available in Sweden" , nevermind, that may be to much credit...

Nice effort, Im with ya, but I doubt logic of this caliber will be comprehendable with the OP



posted on Nov, 24 2009 @ 12:28 AM
link   

Originally posted by maxxseeThe thing is if ppl pass it off as just a normal umbrella. Then it should fit.

"If the shoe fits" ....

Which I don't think it does.
I just enhanced my own video with this screen.
I am now leaning towards that the pole SHOULD have been visible without a doubt since you can see the green CLEARLY behind it. It is NOT too dark att all. So we can strike that idea right now.


Nobody classified this object as one type of specific umbrella. You know that. In fact, you even responded to me when I talked about it being a gezebo or something akin to that.

And seriously, we are supposed to wipe good Video analysis from our minds now because YOU say the pole SHOULD be seen? Why does your word seem to matter more than anyone elses? Why are you not willing to even discuss the possiblity this is anything other than a flying object. It's ridiculous and I've tried not to respond to this thread but I really think you need to get some kind of reality check if you seriously believe this is a flying craft.



posted on Nov, 24 2009 @ 12:39 AM
link   
I dont know if anyone pointed this out yet but if this were a true ufo how come the person walking a mere 15-20 ft away from it didnt take notice what-so-ever?
Just my two cents



posted on Nov, 24 2009 @ 01:45 AM
link   

Originally posted by ryant7
I dont know if anyone pointed this out yet but if this were a true ufo how come the person walking a mere 15-20 ft away from it didnt take notice what-so-ever?
Just my two cents


Yeah that's been pointed out several times and no answer. Probably due to the force field or whatever it is now.



posted on Nov, 24 2009 @ 01:58 AM
link   
reply to post by maxxsee
 
Ja pösstar detta i dialekt so disse garningera inte fatter ett jota ut av dette, å du måtte kömme i håg att disse är jenkare dvs helt beng i huvve. :-)



posted on Nov, 24 2009 @ 02:20 AM
link   
Hmmm, so the vids been analyzed thanks to Gimme_some_thruth by a few individuals and come back as most likely an umbrella, virtually most of us here have indicated prior to the final analysis that it was a white outdoor umbrella, honestly and without that much aggression or hostility (regardless of the rather frustrating stubbornness of the OP, have some conviction sure, but dang).

And the OP still refuses to even acknowledge the slightest possibility its an umbrella.
despite the overwhelming evidence in that theories support.

Im an ardent believer for the most part, and like to read all threads and contribute an opinion when i think i can, but I have my limits, and Maxsee pretty much broke em.

I give up. Deny Ignorance Maxsee... think ill go out and star gaze seeing as its a nice cool clear night, might see something interesting... then again might not. Better than getting riled up reading this thread




posted on Nov, 24 2009 @ 02:26 AM
link   

Originally posted by BigfootNZI give up. Deny Ignorance Maxsee... think ill go out and star gaze seeing as its a nice cool clear night, might see something interesting...


Well, if you don't see anything you could just video an umbrella and trick yourself into think you did.



new topics

top topics



 
12
<< 20  21  22    24  25  26 >>

log in

join