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: 28
12
<< 25  26  27    29  30  31 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 24 2009 @ 08:44 PM
link   
Why bother, ALLisONE? You have obviously proven beyond a shadow of doubt that this is a video of a stationary umbrella. The bird flying between the observer and the object is a dead giveaway as to the size of the object. Maxsee is clearly not going to admit to the truth, so again, why bother? Anyone with a modicum of common sense can clearly see this has been debunked.

The burden of proof is on maxee, not yourself. That maxsee insists on perpetuating this obvious hoax is shameful and against ATS rules, I believe.




posted on Nov, 24 2009 @ 08:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by greeneyedleo
reply to post by maxxsee
 


Please answer my question: You claim that the location found by AllisOne and the photos provided are NOT the location. Then what is the location he found? As far as we all see, they are one in the same.



Maxxsee - This doesn't seem like a ramble ... pretty straight forward and clear to me.

Can you answer this question?



posted on Nov, 24 2009 @ 09:00 PM
link   
The thing about this "sighting" that disturbs me the most, is that how discussions on the most important cases get a few pages before falling into obscurity, and a video of a stupid umbrella gets 28 pages.

Something wrong with that picture.



posted on Nov, 24 2009 @ 09:02 PM
link   
reply to post by Horza
 

Can you answer my questions?
I have yet to hear an answer to them........

I said that I find it very strange that the large porch isn't visible at all in my film. Why is this?? You can't see any sign of it being there..

Also please point out where in this screen the porch is cause all I see is a rock hill by the flag

Save the image to your computer, and mark out the porch in the dark wooden color if you can see it please. I can't see it at all.


[edit on 24-11-2009 by maxxsee]



posted on Nov, 24 2009 @ 09:08 PM
link   
reply to post by maxxsee
 


That can not be answered until we know when that sat image was taken. many sat images are many many years old.

So we need to know 1. when the sat image was taken and 2. when the deck was built at that location

But AGAIN.....since you know the area so well - please tell us what is the location of the website hostile/restaurant that AllisOne linked us to? Are you saying they are not the same location? Because they sure do look like the exact same location - and we can clearly see there is 1. flag pole 2. trees all around 3. umbrellas and 4 . decks



It really appears that even though evidence has been brought forth you are refusing to acknowledge that all this is, is an umbrella. Not sure why you keep the charade up, but other members have gone out of their way to do investigative work, present logical presentations of what we are seeing and you can only call them names and keep this up.

[edit on November 24th 2009 by greeneyedleo]



posted on Nov, 24 2009 @ 09:10 PM
link   

Originally posted by maxxsee

Also please point out where in this screen the porch is cause all I see is a rock hill by the flag
[edit on 24-11-2009 by maxxsee]


If you want to see the porch/veranda/patio... just look at my google map images on page 26? which are far far far better quality than your image of the same building.

Also heres 3 images side by side a crop of mine showing the patio in the satellite image and two from Allisone and the purple line shows the railing in question in each image. interestingly you can even see the railing above the middle purple line in Allisone's enhanced image. (note I placed the purple line bellow it so as not to cover it).



Also id say given the google map sat photos I posted are marked as 2009 there the most up to date. Your image you ask to find the patio on is so grainy, so over blown and poor quality I almost think its deliberate on your part. Deny Ignorance.

(hell, the neighbours kids are playing 'who wants rocky road' at full volume outside over and over... so I might get irritable over the next hour or so
, I apologize in advance)

[edit on 24-11-2009 by BigfootNZ]



posted on Nov, 24 2009 @ 09:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by greeneyedleo
That can not be answered until we know when that sat image was taken. many sat images are many many years old.

Then again the case isn't closed after all just like I said, since you greeneyedleo can't see the porch on that image either.
Neither can you see it at all in my video.
Suggesting that if this porch is exactely behind the flagpole, and that's a big if, was the porch there when I filmed the footage.
That is the million dollar question.

[edit on 24-11-2009 by maxxsee]



posted on Nov, 24 2009 @ 09:20 PM
link   
reply to post by BigfootNZ
 

Oh no I have max zoom in kartor.eniro.se...



posted on Nov, 24 2009 @ 09:21 PM
link   
So could we change the thread title to "white umbrella filmed in HD" and close it?

I would enjoy that.



posted on Nov, 24 2009 @ 09:24 PM
link   
reply to post by diccolo
 

Read my post.



posted on Nov, 24 2009 @ 09:25 PM
link   
reply to post by maxxsee
 


First off, I want you to know I have a very extensive background in computer graphics.

I want to tell you that you are resizing your images completely wrong, there is multiple ways to do it, but only ONE way to do it for analysis. When you resize an image for analysis purposes you are supposed to use "pixel resize". That will preserve all the original pixels and colors, and only multiply the size of them.

What you are doing is using "smart resize" or a similar function such as "bicubic" or "bilinear" which uses a not-so-smart algorithm to recreate the original image. What it does is dilate the colors of the image to make them larger, but that also makes them blurry and changes the original pixels, and it loses data.

So here is the correct way verses the wrong way:
Pixel Resize:


Smart Size:


You see the difference? The first picture preserved the EXACT PIXELS that your camera created. The second picture is a computer generated version of the pixels from your camera. The first one is lossless, and the second one is lossy.

Although the second one looks smoother and better, it is only designed to "fix" images to look more visually pleasing after being resized, and it is NOT designed for analysis purposes.

Here is a further resize of the actual pixels from the camera:



If you actually do an RGB color sample of each pixel, you can see that the flagpole is actually in FRONT of the umbrella.

You can see the flagpole RGB color actually runs through the umbrella, and you can see a single line of pixels that is darker than the umbrella on top of the umbrella. However because of distance, and the width of the flagpole, the color of the umbrella and the pole bleed together slightly. This happens because the pole is not exactly 1 pixel wide, and not exactly 3 pixels wide, it is about 2 pixels wide however it is trying to be displayed in the center of 1 pixel. That means it would have to use 1 and two half pixels on each side, but you can't use half a pixel... so it bleeds. *complicated

The pole is in front of the umbrella.

Take note that I also save all my pictures in the ".PNG" format because PNG is lossless compression, unlike JPG which is lossly.

----------------------


Next, we analyse the building:



I see three windows with white trim on a brown exterior wall on the upper floor. Right below that is a brown door, next to white poles, with a white exterior on the lower floor. To the right is another deck with a white tarp liner. To the left is the flag pole, next to the umbrella....

It all lines up.... 100%.

It is an umbrella! There is nothing more to debate.


[edit on 24-11-2009 by ALLis0NE]



posted on Nov, 24 2009 @ 09:29 PM
link   
reply to post by ALLis0NE
 

I'm not rejecting your post.
BUT
There is a BIG difference depending on where you take the screen in the video. Like someone else said, it seems to be much more clearly infront of the pole at the end of the movie than in beginning of it..
Taken at later point in movie:


edit: Ok I've now read your post.
I can see that you decide just on these few screens. You have not marked the time in your screens. I believe your screens are from beginning of video where I also agree that the object is less clearly infront of the pole.
But watch this other screen aswell from another point in video, no zoom just enlargement:

i45.tinypic.com...

So I do agree that in beginning of video the object seems less infront but in later part of video you can't see any signs of this at all. Which is kind of strange.
Why would the object look to be more infront of pole at different points in video?
I don't have the answer, but this is the case.

Also you can't decide it is an umrella.
I have already noted your critic attitude towards me even in your first posts where you even accused me of several things that were untrue.
Due to this I don't think you are looking at this whole thing objectively. Therefore I can't trust you have made a "fair" analysis no matter who you say you are.
You did not agree to my deal which is also very strange.

I haven't decided what I believe it is yet, but you have.
That's the difference.
I do not believe it is an umbrella though because of the points I have made.

Also all my questions remain unanswered.
Can you explain the inwards angle or the woods underneath the object?
I wouldn't bet on it.....


[edit on 24-11-2009 by maxxsee]



posted on Nov, 24 2009 @ 09:42 PM
link   
Wow... 28 pages for this.

For an object that is umbrella shaped, on a porch with people who ignore it, in a spot one would expect a large umbrella to be, about the size and height of an umbrella, and colored like one would expect an umbrella to be colored.

I imagine it's attached to a round table.

I think this is a really fruitless, long thread.



posted on Nov, 24 2009 @ 09:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by fleabit
I think this is a really fruitless, long thread.


Don't forget hilarious.



posted on Nov, 24 2009 @ 09:45 PM
link   
reply to post by maxxsee
 


Your resize method is incorrect, and your images are JPG format which is a lossly compression. Your images are invalid.

It doesn't matter what time I screen capture the umbrella, the pole is still in front of it. I can even make a video of it....

Answer this.... do you deny this image comparison?




posted on Nov, 24 2009 @ 09:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by diccolo
So could we change the thread title to "white umbrella filmed in HD" and close it?

I would enjoy that.


Heh your avatar looks just like how I feel
... and probably your own feelings currently to boot


And Maxxsee that super zoomed image you posted 8 posts up DOES show the patio railing, including the patio railing vertical slats and the deadspace above and behind the railing (but bellow the bottom edge of the umbrella). Also never assume that a colors there when your looking at a photo thats been super blown up and altered in regards to contrast and brightness or what ever form of enhancment you use on a PC... all sorts of colors pop out, especially when the original image has poor lighting, and your using a digital device, which for the most part even in HD uses some form of compression.

Sure photoshops a useful tool, but dont think for a minute your gonna get CSI results.

I had a pic showing where I marked out the patio railing and its slats on your super zoomed pic a few posts up.. but I cant be bothered. As far as most of us are concerned, its been solved... quite a while ago.

Allisone pretty much nailed its coffin shut. Im bowing out this time, promise
, since this has gone on for a little to long. Although ill check in to see Gimme_Some_Truths analysis... if it gets posted.


[edit on 24-11-2009 by BigfootNZ]



posted on Nov, 24 2009 @ 09:49 PM
link   
reply to post by ALLis0NE
 


Well, thank you for solving that lil mystery....it became rather obvious early in the thread it was an umbrella though shows how easy it is for everyday objects to look like UFO..still shouldn't detract from all the real sightings and research on this good site!

Also, this place looks nice..I like Sweden...might visit this place somewhen, lakes, trees....umbrellas! :-)



posted on Nov, 24 2009 @ 09:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by blupblup
reply to post by maxxsee
 




Hi and welcome to ATS.

1. It's not a UFO, it's not flying.

2. Why have you added music and copyright to the video?

3. That is possibly the worst "UFO" video I've ever seen.


Thanks.
hahahahhaha

well said



posted on Nov, 24 2009 @ 09:53 PM
link   
reply to post by ALLis0NE
 

No I believe the porch IS there today 2009

I already said this just a few posts ago previous to your post!

But the porch isn't there on the eniro.se screen photo from the air.
Also you CAN'T see this porch AT ALL during my whole vid.

You as an video analysist must find this odd, if the porch would have been directly behind the pole like the newer from air photo from 2009 shows.

I am suggesting the porch was built later than before the summer of 2008. In fact, I'm pretty sure of it.
The porch behind the pole would have been visible if it had been there in my movie, which it is NOT.



posted on Nov, 24 2009 @ 09:56 PM
link   
reply to post by BigfootNZ
 

Thanks for sharing your personal feelings...


it is pretty LoL that no one seems to be able to answer my questions.


edit: Here is a yet another .png screen showing it infront of pole .......
Also note the white color (use zoom) to the left of object going in over the pole overlapping it. This distinct overlapping of white color shouldn't have been there if it would have been behind the pole.
Unenhanced and no effects:
i48.tinypic.com...

Here is what it would look like had it been behind pole, watch first picture of these two (link below has 2 pictures):
i47.tinypic.com...

[edit on 24-11-2009 by maxxsee]




top topics



 
12
<< 25  26  27    29  30  31 >>

log in

join