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

Originally posted by The Shrike
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.

You're welcome, glad to help.

Originally posted by TeslaandLyne
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.

There's no such thing as the "oldfield craft"

I've never seen footage of a more realistic looking, solid UFO, but it there simply is no Oldfield craft, and it's not a hoax. It's just somebody seeing something they don't understand, like perhaps 95% of UFO sightings turn out to be, though the oldfield video is some of the most dramatic.

That's why it's relevant to this thread, we think we see good evidence of UFOs flying through the screen in the OP video and it's possible that's what they are. But the Oldfield film is a reminder that sometimes what we see in a picture, or a video, really isn't what it appears to be, so we need to keep an open mind to multiple possible explanations for what we see until we have really good evidence upon which to base our conclusions. In the case of the Oldfield film, we now have that, which I posted in my thread on it here: www.abovetopsecret.com...

In fact, there was a movie called "Seeing is Believing". Well, somebody needs to make another movie called "Seeing is NOT believing" with the Oldfield object as a headliner because sometimes what we see and in the case of the Oldfield film, even photograph, isn't at all what we think it is.

reply to post by Arbitrageur


I hate to derail my own thread but that "craft" that is seen and filmed outside the airplane's window: From the first day I saw it I wondered that if anybody actually saw it in addition to the filmographer, what did they actually see? Did they see anything? I cannot explain it except to point out that its existence seems connected to the window glass edge. As the camera moves the "object" (IF it's an object) seems to be affected by the window frame edge, a refractive effect IOW. It forms and deforms according to the camera movement and the window frame edge. Perhaps on that plane, the windows had a thicker portion where it entered the window frame. It looks that way to me.

It isn't as if the "object" was really out there and an amount of camera movement affected it 'cause it was really out there. But this "object" is associated with the window edge and I think that it is a factor in even possibly creating the object since the window frame edge is what causes it to "disappear".


[edit on 25-11-2009 by The Shrike]

In case of those with craft theories, there were early plans
for such a craft.



Thats the reason for my craft statement.
Plans were set back with the destruction of the power plant:



Actual development would be in Germany however the craft might
appear in the UK or any place now days.

Originally posted by The Shrike
From the first day I saw it I wondered that if anybody actually saw it in addition to the filmographer, what did they actually see? Did they see anything?

I don't know if anyone else saw it but I suspect the photographers did, as this isn't an effect like rods that is never visible to the photographer but only visible when the video is played back.

But the point is that just because something shows up clearly in some footage, doesn't necessarily mean it's really there, if there could be other explanations, so I try to keep an open mind about multiple possibilities until I have enough evidence to narrow down the explanation.

Originally posted by Arbitrageur

Originally posted by The Shrike
From the first day I saw it I wondered that if anybody actually saw it in addition to the filmographer, what did they actually see? Did they see anything?

I don't know if anyone else saw it but I suspect the photographers did, as this isn't an effect like rods that is never visible to the photographer but only visible when the video is played back.

But the point is that just because something shows up clearly in some footage, doesn't necessarily mean it's really there, if there could be other explanations, so I try to keep an open mind about multiple possibilities until I have enough evidence to narrow down the explanation.

I suspect that if the photographer saw the objects he would have abandoned continuing to film a sequence that could have been repeated (with a second vehicle, of course!) and zoomed in on them just as the fireman abandoned videotaping what he was videotaping and zoomed in on the first plane hitting the World Trade Center.

But it was the editor whose comments, if any, to the director might have resulted in the director discussing logistics. If the objects were discussed, I wonder why the scene was not edited to omit the objects by zooming.

After I post this reply, I'm going to initiate a search for the various production personnel to see if I can contact them and ask about the objects. This thread may go to sleep while I do so since it didn't draw the interest I thought it would, but I'll revive it if I speak to any of them.

Edited to add to above: The only person associated with the movie that I was able to find an email for is writer ANDREAS GRUENBERG (along with director DENNIS BERRY). I have no idea if my email will reach him and, if it does, if he'll reply. If he receives it I hope he's curious enough to find out what I want to know.)

BTW, you seem to accept rods as real since you make a valid point about them being too fast to be seen by naked eyes. I'm a rod researcher and Jose Escamilla added me to his research team and named me TVRodman as I caught rods in many TV transmissions and some of the footage I taped was used in a documentary. I also appeared in a documentary that was shown in Europe.


[edit on 26-11-2009 by The Shrike]

Originally posted by The Shrike
BTW, you seem to accept rods as real since you make a valid point about them being too fast to be seen by naked eyes. I'm a rod researcher and Jose Escamilla added me to his research team and named me TVRodman as I caught rods in many TV transmissions and some of the footage I taped was used in a documentary.

Well who can deny that real images of rods appear in videos I know for a fact haven't been hoaxed or faked? But I've also seen videos of cars that have 8 wheels that aren't faked, even though the car being photographed really only has 4 wheels.

So which should I believe, looking at a picture of the car showing it has 4 wheels? Or looking at a video which shows the car has 8 wheels? Well if I didn't know what a real car looks like, I might think it really has 8 wheels just from the video, if I didn't know about temporal strobing:

digitalcontentproducer.com...

Low-temporal-rate motion pictures have another visual problem. When objects move rapidly, or when one pans too fast, objects in the scene may appear as "double objects." For example, when a car drives past, two images of the car may be visible—one image slightly displaced from the other.

So once I know about this, I realize why the video frame shows 8 wheels on the car instead of 4.

When you're dealing with rods, the objects aren't as identifiable as cars, so it's not as easy as drawing a reference that a car has only 4 wheels to deduce what the distorted object is.

So if you really want better information about rods because they move fast, what's the solution to that problem? Film them using a high speed camera. This has been done and I've shown you the evidence under your skeptical Ed moniker and though other than this rod thing you seem to be a likable and intelligent person, you seem to have some kind of mental block on this one issue about the truth about rods. If you are close to Escamilla it is my sincere hope that an intelligent guy like you can figure out what rods really are so you can explain it to Escamilla.

Now if you can show me rods filmed using a high speed camera running at 1000 frames a second like this one, then you'll have me reconsidering my thoughts about rods:



Have you got anything like that?

Anyway back to the topic, it will be interesting to learn what the producers thought about those lights, let us know if they noticed them and what they say about them. I don't see how they could have missed them when they edited the film?

reply to post by Arbitrageur


Let me cut to the chase. There are people who have gone through a lot of trouble, optics-wise, who think that their extreme efforts explain away all rods and I'm familiar with just about every attempt, though not all because they have become redundant. A lot of filmed and videotaped regular, known, insects definitely resemble rods when filmed or videotaped at slow shutter speeds. At high shutter speeds insects look like insects. The suggestion that rods are the result of or inside camera mechanisms is just pure hokey.

But if you saw the variety of rod footage that I have you'd have second thoughts about them. I can show you an eagle reacting to a fast approaching rod. I can show you footage showing a leopard reacting to a rod about to zoom over its head. I can show you rods swarming and in the same location swallows and even a novice can tell the difference between the two. The FBI "confiscated" footage of a high-flying "huge" rod they thought was of a missile. This footage was taken by a NG camera. Jose has footage of a Swedish tank test where the tank fires something like 13 shells in a couple of seconds and while the first and last shell is arching in the air a rod zooms by. I have footage of a guy in some country up on a power pole and as the guy gets electrocuted a huge rod zooms by high up on the sky. I have footage of beautifully gracefull rods on a Mexican garbage dump. I have footage of a rod zooming by an ascending hot air balloon.

None of the footage that I have has been shown separately and when it was shown I'm sure very few even saw the rods. You have to have great sight to see rods in real time whether on TV or in real life as I saw once. I was sitting outside my apartment building and was looking up and saw a seagull flying by but high in the air. All of a sudden I saw something approach the seagull from behind and saw it angle away just a short distance from the seagull.

There is no acceptable scientific explanation for rods because they're not being observed since, like UFOs, one moment they're here and the next moment they're gone!

I forgot to address this:

Now if you can show me rods filmed using a high speed camera running at 1000 frames a second like this one, then you'll have me reconsidering my thoughts about rods:

Jose has been shown on TV with 2 camcorders strapped next to each other and he explains that one camcorder is on auto, or something like that, but the other camcorder is using its high speed shutter. Rods are really out there, they're not a figment of the imagination and cannot be simply explained by people who think they can duplicate mother nature with electronic and mechanical recorders.



[edit on 27-11-2009 by The Shrike]

reply to post by The Shrike
I think that most people were convinced by that video in my last post that rods are normally birds, bats or insects, but if you have high speed footage that shows otherwise I think it would make a great thread, if you're so inclined you may want to start a new thread showing evidence to debunk the rod debunking video I posted.

After all if you've got the truth that's what we are all after. But so far that video with the 1000 fps camera is the best evidence I've seen about what rods are, if there's other evidence I'm open minded to see it, if it's also high speed video like 1000 frames per second or even 500 fps might do.

Tried to embed video, effort failed.

Originally posted by The Shrike
Tried to embed video, effort failed.

edit on 8-12-2010 by The Shrike because: (no reason given)

Maybe you need another YEAR of trying.

Originally posted by amongus

Originally posted by The Shrike
Tried to embed video, effort failed.

edit on 8-12-2010 by The Shrike because: (no reason given)

Maybe you need another YEAR of trying.

Well, instead of being a numbskull critic, do YOU know how to embed videos? If you do you would have come across as a contributor.

reply to post by The Shrike

After you upload it to youtube, click the "share" underneath the video in youtube. There will be a link there, copy the part of the link AFTER the =, and then go to your ATS post, click "Vid:youtube" and in the popup box paste what you copied from youtube's site, then OK and that is how you embed it.