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.

 

Are these real UFOs or just a "TEASE"? (movie title)

page: 1
6
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 23 2009 @ 07:10 PM
link   
In 1999 a movie titled "TEASE" was released. Because it contained the always-sexy actress Rosanna Arquette I went to see it. It also featured another favorite actor Jürgen Prochnow, plus Mandy Schaffer. At 1:03:44 an unbelievable scene unfolds. Mandy has driven a car with a corpse to a pier and she tries to have it drive itself off the pier into the water but the car gets stuck on the edge of the pier. She rocks it continuously until the car finally falls into the water. When the scene shifts from her rocking the car to the car in the water we see in the sky above the car 2 fast moving white objects, called by some "orbs."

Since this is a hollywood-type movie, I'm positive that the camera being used is one of those big, expensive 35mm type. So the scene is in full focus from foreground to background. Yet the 2 objects seen hauling towards the right edge do not resemble human craft of any kind because no wings, motors, tail, etc., are visible.

In 1999 I was going to a few UFO forums, the alt. series, and I brought this movie's "UFOs" to the members' attention. I've never seen anyone else mention these objects since then so perhaps some of you will be familiar with it and may add unknown info.

I tried to contact the director, the producer, even the editor to ask about their reaction when the film was being previewed prior to release. I wasn't able to contact anyone as Hollywood seems to have the largest number of hidden email addresses!

NOTE: The colored pattern in the photos is the result of my digicam taking the photos off the computer monitor. The pattern does not really exist. I had to make the photos small for ATS because when I tried them a bit larger the right edge was chopped off and that's where the objects are!

Here is the footage at 640x480 at YouTube. The scene lasts 6 seconds.
www.youtube.com...

What do you think?

Here are two frames from the footage.

First appearance of "UFOs" above the sinking car.



6 seconds later the final showing of the "UFOs" closer to the right edge.



[edit on 23-11-2009 by The Shrike]

[edit on 23-11-2009 by The Shrike]




posted on Nov, 23 2009 @ 08:02 PM
link   
I'm assuming that's the movie that IMDB calls "poison" which I had a little trouble finding not only because of the name, but because they show the date as 2000 instead of 1999 as you said:

www.imdb.com...

That's it right? Yes I too like Rosanna Arquette, maybe the aliens do too and wanted to check her out?
seriously though I can't tell what those objects are. I tried to search for the movie a couple of places and not having much luck so far but I'm still looking, it would help me to see the motion instead of just some still photos.



posted on Nov, 23 2009 @ 08:04 PM
link   
Tease, a. k. a. Poison.
www.imdb.com...

I don't know. A lens flare from a moving bright light off screen ?



posted on Nov, 23 2009 @ 08:12 PM
link   

Originally posted by Arbitrageur
I'm assuming that's the movie that IMDB calls "poison" which I had a little trouble finding not only because of the name, but because they show the date as 2000 instead of 1999 as you said:

www.imdb.com...

That's it right? Yes I too like Rosanna Arquette, maybe the aliens do too and wanted to check her out?
seriously though I can't tell what those objects are. I tried to search for the movie a couple of places and not having much luck so far but I'm still looking, it would help me to see the motion instead of just some still photos.


I have the DVD but I have no idea how to post those 6 seconds in a movie. I could do it to YouTube but I'd have to shoot the footage off my computer monitor and in low resolution - 320x240 - as that is what YouTube prefers. I don't have HD. Then after I post it on YouTube I could add the URL to this thread. I think I'll give that a try but it's going to take me a little while to do.



posted on Nov, 23 2009 @ 08:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by nablator
Tease, a. k. a. Poison.
www.imdb.com...

I don't know. A lens flare from a moving bright light off screen ?




Mod Note: One Line Post – Please Review This Link.

[edit on 23/11/2009 by Sauron]

It is not a lens flare. A lens flare is caused by a bright, reflective object at a certain angle to the lens.


[edit on 23-11-2009 by The Shrike]



posted on Nov, 23 2009 @ 09:52 PM
link   
reply to post by Arbitrageur
 


I posted the footage to YouTube. Look at my OP for the URL. Your reply got me to do it so, thanks.



posted on Nov, 24 2009 @ 03:08 AM
link   
reply to post by The Shrike
 


Wow The Shrike you must feel relieved letting this out after all this time


Just before the shot changes to Rosanna Arquette(if that is her) on the wharf the front objects one bright light turns to two.The second object could be doing the same very hard to see.



I assume The Shrike you have watched this movie.What time of day do you think it was shot at.
I ask this to discard a theory that those objects could be car head lights as they are both on the same path and height plane.
There could be a road on the hill to the left of the shot, Coast road

The shadows from the wharf and the rear of the vehicle indicate it could be mid morning or mid afternoon.


Zelong.



posted on Nov, 24 2009 @ 07:38 PM
link   
reply to post by The Shrike
 
Thanks for posting it to youtube, that helps a lot!



Originally posted by The Shrike

Originally posted by nablator
Tease, a. k. a. Poison.
www.imdb.com...

I don't know. A lens flare from a moving bright light off screen ?


It is not a lens flare. A lens flare is caused by a bright, reflective object at a certain angle to the lens.


I'm not saying it is lens flare, and yes,that's what causes lens flare, but how do you know it's not caused by some bright lights moving outside the camera's field of view? Again I'm not saying that's what it is, but I wouldn't be too quick to rule it out either. If the camera is zoomed in, it can still pick up and show light sources outside the field of view as lens flare, possibly even something like headlights as Zelong suggested.

If shot in Canada, I see headlights on there even in the daytime, but I don't know where it was shot. But it needn't be headlights either, as camera crews can have all kinds of moving camera equipment and lights set up to shoot a scene, though why they would need that for this scene is unclear.

Here's an example I have from the Star Trek movie, these lights move across the screen too but it's more clear that they are lens flare:



It's really not clear to me yet if it could be lens flare or not in the video you posted.

I'll download it and look at a little bit more but just wanted to thank you for posting the video!



[edit on 24-11-2009 by Arbitrageur]



posted on Nov, 24 2009 @ 08:39 PM
link   
reply to post by Arbitrageur
 


I just viewed the segment again. First, the time of day is about 12:15-12:30pm because the shadows are short. Second, being a photographer since 1955, I'm extremely familiar with the many causes of lens flare and have used them for creative photography. There is nothing in the scene that could cause lens flare as in the vidcap you provided as an example where they're obviously shooting inside a set which contains many reflective surfaces plus lights. Third, my opinion is that they are genuine UFOs; I do not think they are fake images. I do not think that the director had them inserted.

I've seen other Hollywood movies and documentaries where similar objects have been filmed/videotaped and probably because the cameraperson is so engrossed on the main action that they don't see peripheral abnomarlities. However, as I said, when the film was being edited someone had to have seen those 2 objects and I wish I could have been a fly on the wall to hear any possible discussion.

You mention that the objects start to duplicate and this seems to be endemic of emulsion film to digital transfers because on another thread where I show a white object fleeting over the moon it goes from single to double constantly. So the object is not really splitting, it's an optical effect/defect.

A little aside:
When I saw the movie "Jaws" for the first time in a theater in 1975 I could swear I saw a white object go behind Roy Scheider's head and re-appear on the other side of his head when they were just beginning to deal with the shark. In 1977 when "The Goodbye Girl" was being filmed in my neighborhood I waited on the sidewalk for Richard Dreyfuss to emerge frm his dressing van as I wanted to ask him about the "UFO."

When he emerged, first I took a photo of him stepping onto the sidewalk and then I approached him and he put his arm around my shoulder and we walked toward the supermarket where they were filming. I asked him about the "UFO" that I saw and, surprisingly, he told me he couldn't talk about it. In viewings of the video version I would look for that particular segment and in some versions I would see what now looked like a "shooting star." I just taped it again on cable and now the scene shows nothing!



posted on Nov, 24 2009 @ 08:41 PM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 



posted on Nov, 24 2009 @ 09:46 PM
link   

Originally posted by The Shrike
reply to post by Arbitrageur
 
I just viewed the segment again. First, the time of day is about 12:15-12:30pm because the shadows are short.
I disagree. The shadows aren't that short, look at the pier which may be about 15 feet high and the shadow at the beginning is probably extending out 20 feet from the pier, so it's more than a 45 degree angle, that's not short at all!! So it's nowhere noon when that scene is filmed.

And note the well defined shadows, at the beginning they are very clear.

Now look at the scene change at 6 seconds into the youtube video. Doesn't the lighting look different there? I no longer see the well defined shadow I saw at the beginning so I'm not even sure if it's shot at the same time of day though I would think so because how many cars are they going to dump in the drink? So I'm not sure what time of day it is after 6 seconds as the shadows aren't well defined, which makes me wonder if there's any additional lighting, especially on the car. But I'm sure the shadows aren't short at the beginning and I think you need to watch it again and use references for length estimates like the car length and recognize you can't see straight down do there's even more shadow than is visible in the shot.

Also look at this shot, there's NO sun on top of her head and it actually illuminated the underside of her chin it's so low!!!



But as for it being flares, like I said I don't see any obvious reason why it would be flares but I'm reluctant to rule out any kind of reflection without knowing more about the lighting conditions. But it could be a genuine UFO, or two.

I also think you're right about the splitting being a video artifact, this is a well known artifact of videos. If they filmed this movie on film I doubt the original still frames from the film would show the splitting.

[edit on 24-11-2009 by Arbitrageur]



posted on Nov, 24 2009 @ 09:55 PM
link   
looks like 2 F16's haulin ass.. but hard to confirm. We need some good blu-ray hidef screen grabs and video.



posted on Nov, 24 2009 @ 10:34 PM
link   
reply to post by Arbitrageur
 


Having had contact with Hollywood, I know for a fact that certain shots are done at different times for many reasons. But when Mandy (not Rosanna) arrives at the pier and she gets out of the car the sun is almost directly above her. Then they had to reposition the camera from above to below the pier and that may have taken some time unless the camera was on a boom and they just boomed on down. I'd opt for the boom.

Here is what you have to take into consideration. You really can't use my footage from YouTube because of the way I took the footage for YouTube. I played the DVD on my computer. But first I had to set up my digicam on a tripod and select 640x480 'cause now YouTube accepts that format rather than before when they allowed only 320x240. I had already shot the footage at the lower resolution and when I went to YouTube to upload it I saw that they now required the higher resolution so I reshot it. Although while adequate, shooting to a digital card doesn't result in a match of the DVD's resolution.

So now I'm shooting a higher definition film in lower resolution (not DVD quality). The vidcap of Mandy that you posted is really not dark when you view the DVD. A reflector from below shining the overhead sun to illuminate her face might have been used. No Hollywood cameraperson worth his salt would want wind up with a dark image like that. He'd be fired as soon as the day's footage was previewed.

I bought the DVD off amazon.com for less than $2 so I could post the UFOs. All I can do is suggest that if you are interested, you acquire either a videotape or a DVD of the movie so that you can see in real time what takes place. Perhaps your local library may have a copy.

Those objects are real and in the sky, hauling!



posted on Nov, 24 2009 @ 10:54 PM
link   
reply to post by The Shrike
 


The UFO pilots know when movies are in production and the locations as
perhaps the movie business and entertainment fund the holders of the Tesla
airship since they would not fund Tesla after 1914 but the US found out in 1943
that Germany put together his airship. Tesla stuck it to the US government who
are now the security guards of the ether ships instead of the Nazi SS.



posted on Nov, 24 2009 @ 10:58 PM
link   

Originally posted by The Shrike
reply to post by Arbitrageur
 


Having had contact with Hollywood, I know for a fact that certain shots are done at different times for many reasons. But when Mandy (not Rosanna) arrives at the pier and she gets out of the car the sun is almost directly above her.


It may be directly above her when she arrives but by the time the car is in the water, it isn't. And it's even lower when they take that backlit shot, so I agree they shoot at different times of day, that much is clear even from the short clip you posted.


Those objects are real and in the sky, hauling!


That could be! I haven't figured out what they are.

If I could get the DVD for $2 like you did, I might buy it, because for one thing I'm curious what these plot keywords mean on the imdb link: www.imdb.com...
Bra Less Teen | See Through Swimsuit | Sex | Boarding School | Nipples Visible Through Clothing

They don't tell me a lot about the plot...or do they?


Then again it only got a rating of 3/10 so I probably wouldn't pay much more than $2 for it if it's really that bad
But seeing the higher resolution images of the UFOs would be nice.



posted on Nov, 24 2009 @ 11:30 PM
link   
reply to post by Arbitrageur
 


Well, I love looking at Rosanna, at least her top when it gets wet! And she's enjoyable as an actress. But Mandy is a sweet looking, but dangerous, gal and, yes, the bathing suit scenes can affect changes in certain parts of your body if you're heterosexual. I have to forget the UFOs and pay attention to her again.

I'm considering getting that vcr that plugs into the USB input of the PC so that I can play my UFO tapes and select the good stuff that I've taped since the early '80s.

Do you know if ATS has instructions for embedding videos? I'd love to learn otherwise I'd have to post low-resolution videos at YouTube first. There's some good stuff in THE SECRET NASA TRANSMISSION: THE SMOKING GUN that would be of interest here.



posted on Nov, 25 2009 @ 12:35 AM
link   
reply to post by The Shrike
 


Hi again The Shrike may I suggest a few things.i'm going to anyway, since you have a DVD watch it on your computer, when the Objects are seen take screen shots,pressing Print screen than opening Paint and pasting and saving it there by pressing ALT+V.
Better still is open your dvd and find the VOB with the footage and run it through Windows Movie maker to narrow it down.Than up the top you will see save in .WMV format, also an option to upload to YouTube


Your going to love this The Shrike as you said, you have more Anomaly's to show.I my self have noticed a plane in an old B/W movie (not Blazing Saddles) I can't remember at the moment but I jumped all over the lounge like a monkey screaming "That's Trick Photography" which was the Word of the time



Zelong.

[edit on 25/11/09 by Zelong]



posted on Nov, 25 2009 @ 02:25 AM
link   
reply to post by The Shrike
 


Zelong's suggestion to take some screenshots of the UFOs right off the DVD is a good one, the results will be much better than taking pictures of your monitor.

To upload videos to ATS media, go to member tools at the top, then choose "upload media". I've had some problems with it accepting my videos in their normal format so I've converted them to flv then uploaded the flv so it doesn't have to convert, but the only advantage I see for using the ATS media is their videos download faster than youtube. Here's a sample of ATS media showing an infamous UFO:


(click to open player in new window)


And here's your OP video embedded from youtube for comparison, you can choose "quote" to see what the text looks like to embed it.


See, not too much difference.

I think youtube is almost fast enough so just use youtube, you can embed those by clicking the youtube link at the top right when you're righting a message, just insert the number of the video after the v= and most will embed fine. In the case of your video that text is Mb2IB2KVbyE . A few say "embedding disabled" but most work. If you're comfortable with youtube you can just use that and embed the youtube videos.

[edit on 25-11-2009 by Arbitrageur]



posted on Nov, 25 2009 @ 12:54 PM
link   


A pdf document download.
See page 9 of 10 for object no one on earth has seen.
The OLDFIELD object is a sighting of a craft made using
the same design.
They all work on the same principle denied by Einstein and standard
science.
The Oldfield craft looks to be suspended fore and aft.
This is also shown in the Albany footage by Fox News.
Can't recall any other similar footage.
There are dual bright lights in some videos giving off a trail,
weather caused by the pressures waves or a fake trail to simulate
a jet, might be a mini dirigible torpedo.



posted on Nov, 25 2009 @ 05:22 PM
link   
Thanks to Zelong and Arbitrageur for your suggestions on putting videos and images on ATS, I appreciate it. I copied and pasted them to my Notebook and just printed them to make following easier.



new topics

top topics



 
6
<<   2 >>

log in

join