It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


Metallic saucer filmed on my mobile phone {{Identified}}

page: 24
<< 21  22  23    25 >>

log in


posted on Nov, 30 2009 @ 02:06 AM

Originally posted by Echelon117

These are the re-postings with updated info, identifying the objects as weather balloons

Maybe I missed something earlier in the thread but I know you said that you called a neighbor about it and they confirmed it was a balloon, correct? Well, the video you present to us moves nothing like a balloon, in fact it stays stationary for about a minute and moves slightly to the left, now what kind of balloon does this and for what purpose? If it's a balloon, why is it in above your area? Have you checked the source of where these balloons come from and investigated yourself?

posted on Nov, 30 2009 @ 02:28 AM

Originally posted by Echelon117
reply to post by william.gauncents

I couldn't care less if I tried, that you believe it or not.

If this thread gets put into the HOAX section or not, I don't care.

If the entire thread gets pulled from ATS, I don't care.

I wish I had never started it in the first place. I should have known better than to want to share my experience, BE IT A REAL ALIEN SPACESHIP OR NOT, with the online community that is ATS...

Ok, hold on right there. There have been *many* in the "ATS community" here, including myself that have given you nothing but respect and the benefit of the doubt in all possible aspects. All I've asked for from you, is a simple response, which stll btw I haven't got. The only thing I've heard you explain so far, is that CGI experts ( I can assume you are talking to allisone since he's the *only* one here who has made a valid CGI claim) are "twits" ?? Echelon, you are not being fair to the members of this thread that have been fair to you all along. If you're going to post a thread with as much interest as you had in the beginning, all the while generating an obvious amount of interest here (the ATS community) go ahead and say "well maybe in my spare time someday I'll try to ask the neighbor whats up". Really?? That's all you got? I could care less if this is a hoax or not or if it's thrown into the trash. I care more about how you've suddenly neglected to give attention to the thread you created, and have instead put it up to those open-minded like myself to critique this thread that has become so blatantly non-important to you any longer. Go read your Iran threads. BTW, NO PROBLEM that you've had several people on here try and give a solid and reasonable crituiqe to your credibility here.

[edit on 30-11-2009 by Wookiep]

posted on Nov, 30 2009 @ 02:32 AM

Originally posted by alienanderson
"This video has been removed by the user"

Did anyone save a copy of the youtube vids to their hard drive (e.g. with keepvid or similar website)?

I saved the "raw" video to my HDD because I was, at a certain point quite interested in the thread. Lemme know if you want them. Otherwise, since the OP just so notably pointed out, this thread means nothing to him anymore as "ATS" apparently drove him to no longer have interest, as I no longer do. Oh well, At least I met a few friends along the way.

[edit on 30-11-2009 by Wookiep]

[edit on 30-11-2009 by Wookiep]

posted on Nov, 30 2009 @ 03:23 AM
The video reminded me of that Texas ufo in the way that it looked and was shot.Not as clear but very similar in my opinion.Unfortunately I think the Texan UFO is too good to be true and though I am not a cgi expert I have a gut feeling that it is.

[edit on 30-11-2009 by Foo_Lovers]

posted on Nov, 30 2009 @ 05:13 AM
I had trouble logging in with my old account Little Wolf so I have created a new on.

I've seen something very similar in Lismore NSW on the 12th February, 2009

You can see my report and photo here:

As I have said to many people I don't know what this was there were three objects ... I will let you read the report and view the photo.

Creators Blessings

posted on Nov, 30 2009 @ 05:58 AM
Hey mate, not all of us were bagging you I haven't said anything till the last page because I wanted to get my facts before I opened my mouth. I can certainly wait till you go home again and would like you to U2U me with what ever results you come up with, that's if you don't want to post them. You had and still have a fair few supporters here that respect honesty and the way you presented yourself. Don't worry about the others that's their opinion and they are entitled to them. Remember Opinions are like A*seholes every one has one. Take care bud and I hope you post the results of your next trip home. Say hello to the dog for me, I had a dog as a kid and when he stayed with my parents he was still My Dog, he slept on an old bed on the back porch.


posted on Nov, 30 2009 @ 08:08 AM

Originally posted by Brentnauer
Were there any sounds? Odors?
Well i am one of those people who have seen clearly what can be called an alien ship , but we didnt had a camera , the thing stood there for brief amount of time in front of our eyes. And then when you explain someone there disbelief in you makes you feel angry and agitated. People who think you are not a liar think you are mistaken.

But coming to your footage and to your disclosure, what is inconvincing is no voice , if you say the basic footage is straight from camera its more inconvincing because the excitement and breathing should have been slighly audible, when your camera shakes it should have created sounds loud enough to be recorded.

Second thing is the shadow pattern of the surrounding means that as you say disc was as of silver it should have been in no way as dark as it appears.

And third the so called 2nd object which is moving from below (near vineyard as you said) it appears to be too big . So it is not consistent with what you say you observed and what you recorded. I am sure that vineyard seems atleast 500 mts away .

But i do not claim that you didnt saw or you didnt recorded what you say you did. I am only commenting on the footage.i might be wrong

posted on Nov, 30 2009 @ 08:25 AM

Originally posted by thepixelpusher
Why are you being so cagey about this now instead of following through on this? You're lack of follow-up has people questioning you. It needn't be that way if you continue to look into things and post evidence of the neighbors balloon.
[edit on 30-11-2009 by thepixelpusher]

Well said thepixelpusher

Your demenour in the last couple of posts comes as very defensive. I can understand with all the acrimonious comments, but please remember there are a lot who are still supporting you and hoping that you come out of this smelling like roses!

Walking away from this is not the best move. You introduced this to us, and the onus is on you to follow through with it - not just for our benefit - but for the sake of your personal dignity.

Gordi, wookiep, thepixelpusher, Hump01, myself, and many others genuinely want you to prove to everyone that you have been honest all along, and that you have genuinely tried to uncover the facts of this incident.

The outcome is not as important as the effort you put in to get there.

Thank you for coming back, and as I said before, if you know you are right and that you have done your best to get to the bottom of this sighting, then you have every right to hold your head high

[edit on 30-11-2009 by mckyle]

posted on Nov, 30 2009 @ 08:30 AM
reply to post by Wookiep

Well said mate

I can understand him being on the defensive, but for this very reason he has to 'rise to the occasion' and demonstrate that he has nothing to hide and that he has done his best.

posted on Nov, 30 2009 @ 08:32 AM

Originally posted by william.gauncents

Originally posted by Echelon117

The reason I am saying this is because it's going to be some time before I go back home to where these videos were shot, therefore its going to be a while before I can pay my neighbor there a visit.


Well, you obviously have an internet connection. Would it be wrong for me to assume that "your neighbor" has an internet connection as well?

Actually, it would be a shorter process to have the neighbor take some pics and reproduce it for you and send them to you to produce here than to have your parents go over there and do it and then send the pics to you and then to put them up here.

Your neighbor seemed amused by your phone call. If you simply explained this "hoax" as you now call it that you made available to the world, I think he would readily help you.
[edit on 29-11-2009 by william.gauncents]

This is the most helpful, and thoughtful post I've seen from you

Keep this up, and I'll be putting you back on my Christmas card list ;-)


posted on Nov, 30 2009 @ 09:00 AM
I've just read through 24 pages... before deciding to comment my thoughts on it. I'm glad that someone with CGI or video manipulation software could come forward and offer some kind of evidence to show those that aren't as knowledgeable that it can be done.

As for the Original threadstarter, I too wish for his own personal reputation he doesn't walk away from this. I witnessed a glowing orb in september here in my home town, (Manchester, UK) as of yet, despite it being investigated by M.A.P.I.T no further explanation has been given for what it is I saw. However during my original post i too was brought under scrutiny, its difficult to try and stay level headed when people flame or bait you with insults. Its not to say that your a hoaxer because you retaliate its just part of being a human being, if someone attacks you, you defend yourself.

I still hope that despite all of his words in the last few pages, that echelon follows up his investigation and concludes they were talking about the same balloon on the phone. I think that if echelon isn't rude and asks the right questions to his parents neighbour, over the phone, it wouldnt take too long for them to just confirm the object being videod is the same one being used by the neighbour.

I propose to echelon117 to do a u-turn, ignore the people that have flamed you and follow this up with a final investigation.
1. Call your parents and ask your father to use a digital camera or camcorder and have it charged and ready.
2. Call your parents neighbour, explain that, due to a mis-identification on your part, a debating website and yourself would like full closure on the subject, if its not intrusive could your father call round at xx.xx am/pm (arrange a time/date) for a viewing and photography session of said object./balloon he uses.

If this neighbour is using balloons for weather purposes and is on the level he wont mind, we dont need to know the full details of why he does what he does, but photography or video capture of the object he uses would be very very helpful and you'd be greatful for his assistance.

Throughout this thread I have tried to keep an open mind, the original video although shot with a mobile phone, was actually pretty good considering.

I hope you change your mind and follow this up with a final investigation.

[edit on 30-11-2009 by Superiorraw]

posted on Nov, 30 2009 @ 10:14 AM
reply to post by Echelon117

Hello everyone,
My name is Marc Dantonio. I am one of the MUFON Photo/Video analysts. Johnny Anonymous and I met in San Jose a couple years ago at the MUFON Symposium held there where I was presenting a talk on the CG nature of the Drone Hoax. As a result I started to follow ATS but don't often get time to respond as I have typically 10-20 UFO cases to examine at any one time. In this case I examined this video evidence and wanted to say that to come to any conclusion of value I would need the original data so that I can look for hold downs of any kind including ropes and cables etc. If this is a balloon then there should be indications in the video data whether it is a balloon of the kind previously mentioned and which I have seen as well or a small model suspended on the roof. My first inclination though is that this is a genuine video of an object some distance away but my second inclination is that it does appear to be exactly the proportions of the "Saturn" or "UFO" balloons mentioned earlier. By proportions I mean central sphere to ring proportions. One thing that needs looking into is the supposed brightness of the top of the object. Cell phone cameras by and large are exceedingly good at reproducing sun glints as highly saturated CCD sensor blooms and in this case the object shows none of that. Typically such cameras show such things rather well as I mentioned.

Many people photograph and video capture things that to them look strange. It does not mean they are intent on hoaxing the rest of us. I we had that attitude then NOTHING would ever be found to be real, not even the real thing. So as I say to many folks, let the image analysis science speak for itself. Opinion can be formulated from that result.
Thanks for the time,
Marc Dantonio

posted on Nov, 30 2009 @ 10:45 AM
reply to post by fxmodels

Well said Marc, and thank you very much for taking the time to contribute to this thread.

It would be fantastic if Echelon could provide you with the original footage.
Echelon - Here is your chance to have your footage properly analysed!

(I certainly know what I would want to do now, if my footage was genuine but being questioned.)


posted on Nov, 30 2009 @ 11:05 AM
Wait - U R kidding me right? Seriously, this changed your view of the Universe???

1st - You do not even know who was at the controls, let alone if it was a remote RC toy!

2nd - You have zero clue if this could even survive in space let alone thin atmospher.

All you have here is a shakey video in AIR space -

When do some people actually engage critical thinking skills? When do some people actually engage analytical think and some common sense???

posted on Nov, 30 2009 @ 11:20 AM

Originally posted by Echelon117
To anyone claiming they are a CGI expert, and saying this is CGI and your software shows it to be so, you are a [snip] and a [snip].

Dude, you aren't fooling anyone you [snip]. You are just mad we can identify it as CGI, and you can get banned for being a hoaxer.

This is CLEARLY CGI. There is no other reason for the UFO to move with your camera. Obviously a lot of ATS members are ignorant to basic knowledge of light and lenses, or they would have spotted it right away.

When your camera moves the UFO moves exactly with it. When the camera moves left, the UFO moves left a few pixels in relation to the house. When your camera moves up fast, the UFO moves up fast, in relation to the house, and when the camera moves right, the UFO moves right a few pixels. THAT DOESN'T HAPPEN WITH OBJECTS NOT ATTACHED TO THE CAMERA. There is ZERO reason for a "balloon" to move exactly with the camera, let alone a UFO.

Also, you are NOT fooling anyone. You did NOT take this UFO video with your cell phone. You used a real camera with lens zoom. Cell phone cameras use algorithms to enlarge the image in the view port, they don't physically zoom it. That causes pixelation. However in your video you have a physical zoom with moving lenses, and your image is amplified. Cell phones don't use moving lenses for zoom, because then they would have to have motors and or servos attached.

I am almost 100% sure, you or someone filmed with a real camera, then used crappy software to add in your crap CGI, and then you exported as a lower quality "cell phone" compression so you can hide all your crappy CGI skills. Since high quality CGI composites are much harder to make look real, amateurs ALWAYS export to a lower quality in order to make the composite object blend with the rest of the image more smooth. It's a common trick, and one that the OP or his "friend" did.

Although the OP managed to fool the admins of ATS, and everyone else into thinking he identified the object so he can get out of being banned for hoaxing, he didn't fool me, I can see every single flaw in his p.o.s. CGI hoax.

[edit on 30-11-2009 by ALLis0NE]

posted on Nov, 30 2009 @ 11:26 AM
reply to post by fxmodels

Marc, I'm 11 11 the researcher from the Drone Hoax, if you are familar.

Please explain the movement of the "ufo".

If you study it closely, at the pixel level, and make the right measurements, the "ufo" moves exactly with the camera movement and shake.

Please explain that. It's not delayed movement either which would point to it being the actual movement of the object, but it is INSTANT movement and syncornization with the camera.

It SCREAMS "motion tracking" in a million ways. I think the OP is a hoaxer and is trying to get out of being banned by saying he identified it as a balloon.

[edit on 30-11-2009 by ALLis0NE]

posted on Nov, 30 2009 @ 12:26 PM
reply to post by ALLis0NE

Good to hear from you... Yes I realize it could be CG but before going down that path as well I was simply asking for the original source material to GET the source material...

However,at this point, because of much of what has been said in the thread I believe it is probably highly unlikely we will see the source as too many people have let on that they think it is CG.
So, I am pretty certain this case will just slip away...

Since that is the case, I had something to say about the SECOND little object seen later in the video, and the video quality, that the video gives away for free. In spite of the lousy quality, I was fairly certain I was seeing a CG element in that small object but did not want to say anything immediately. The motion of the small object seems to give this away to us.
Regarding the video quality... the pixelation in the video is NOT consistent with most video produced by cell phones and that is another issue I was going to tackle as well. It appears that the video was made to look like a typical low res SNAPSHOT taken with cell phones. This presents a problem because a video running at 15-24fps will appear much smoother and less pixelated than what was presented. This is because of the way the eye receives the data. We see a number of frames every split second which the eye has combined for us nicely, resulting in a smoothed image sequence. In the video we see what looks like a misinterpretation of how cell phone video cameras function, and the video is pixelated to a single frame still level rather than the smoothed video appearance. So that was my take on the quality.

I am still open to examination of the original source video of course and as always, willing to be wrong. I always say that the grail is within our reach, we just have to continue to plod onward into the morass of bad data to get at the good.

[edit on 30-11-2009 by fxmodels]

posted on Nov, 30 2009 @ 12:31 PM
reply to post by ALLis0NE

Interesting ... I did NOT see the video you posted in your link. I saw two others of this object that only had small elements of the house in the view...

I concur, it is a blatant, obvious CG hoax and a very poor one at that... Wish I saw that video FIRST before spending the time I did on this case...


[edit on 30-11-2009 by fxmodels]

posted on Nov, 30 2009 @ 12:33 PM
why is this not in the hoax board yet? It is not a UFO the OP even says it was a baloon.
Though i think he hoaxed it and is using the baloon as an out, kinda like bad UFO videos/pics are normally taken by a "friend".

posted on Nov, 30 2009 @ 12:35 PM
What I have never understood - is why people do this.

** People post something that is easily and quickly seen as less then claimed. Then instead of stepping up to the plate and giving answers (credible ones) to the questions raised - they get all 'self-righteous'.

Why do people just expect to be believed?
Especially with what they offer and do not offer. I mean with the flood of hoaxes, CGI scams and such. People just expect this blind faith and trust? Why?

I mean - they make these claims of "Speed" (when most are not moving at all)and/or at the 'video moment' moving a normal speed for for an aircraft.

They, without having any clue (because they lack serious x-ray vision) - know it's an ET-Alien at the controls. Really? How on earth do they know that?

Then they just know again without any proof at all - that this UFO can survive in outerspace and travel at speeds to make interstellar space travel time/cost effective. Again, how do they know this?

When these questions are asked, they get mad.

With the flood of CGI - people have become aware of what to look for. So they get upset because we know and see this???

"Today" - it is going to take serious evidence and proof - not just a blury video. People who submit these need to seriously engage some Critical Thinking - Analytical Thinking - Common sense and most of all ask this question:

Why should I expect people to believe me with this video and what I have and do not have to offer?

new topics

top topics

<< 21  22  23    25 >>

log in