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.

 

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

page: 5
118
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 24 2009 @ 09:33 PM
link   
If you mark the width of the fully zoomed-out object out on paper, and then mark the fully zoomed-in as well, it's exactly twice as large.

Hardly "much larger," as stated.




posted on Nov, 24 2009 @ 09:34 PM
link   
I'll remain on the fence regarding this one. There are some video related anomalies / discrepancies with the video, with that said they do not indicate an intent to deceive BUT warrant closer examination which is common in cases of UFO videos. This should be done to rule out camera deficits, determine and include any known issues with that particular type of phone cam, uploading issues, pixel aspects etc. But, at least it wasn't that nasty brown snake!



posted on Nov, 24 2009 @ 09:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by fleabit
If you mark the width of the fully zoomed-out object out on paper, and then mark the fully zoomed-in as well, it's exactly twice as large.

Hardly "much larger," as stated.


But so is everything else in the yard. In fact, the roof line is still in focus when he tips the camera down fully zoomed, telling you he hasn't zoomed very far at all or it would be a blur, as would the fence, which also grows in proportion to the object.

So if he hasn't zoomed very far, yet the object grows significantly, even only 2x, means it's very close.



posted on Nov, 24 2009 @ 09:41 PM
link   
reply to post by Echelon117
 



Sorry if this has been asked (I have a very slow connection and it would take me ages to search through the posts.
But where abouts are in you the Great Land Of Aus!



posted on Nov, 24 2009 @ 09:42 PM
link   
reply to post by ZombieOctopus
 


But this is exactly why opinions don't help us out here.

My opinion is that this is not suspended from the roof and your is that it is.

So who is right? I wouldn't bet money on me ...

I have looked at the footage over and over and, to me, it looks like the object is on a different plane to the shed roof.

To me it looks like it is out past the fence.

Have a look again at the first video in the very first few second before the zoom in.

Can you really be 100% certain that the object is suspended from the roof?



posted on Nov, 24 2009 @ 09:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by fleabit

Originally posted by zaiger
Im going to go with the classic dangle from a string method. The lighting is off for it to be far away.


Can you point out the string then? It should be visible, especially when zoomed in upon. I see nothing.

Also, if this was taken through a camera-phone, the lighting of course is going to be fair to partly crappy. That doesn't rule out it's legitimacy.


Go outside with an equally crappy mobile phone and try to take a picture of a clear or light blue fishing line from 8 feet away, the camera will not pick it up. On a mobile phone the "zoom" feature is digital so you are pretty much just seeing the same image blown up as there are no moving lenses to adjust focus, so zoomed in or out it really will not make a difference.

[edit on 24-11-2009 by zaiger]



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


Ok.. what is the point of a 2x zoom if it does not double the size of something?

If I took a picture of a skyscraper from 25 miles away, and zoomed in 2x, would you agree it would be exactly 2 times taller? It would still be tiny, sure.. but would it be twice as tall with a 2x zoom?



posted on Nov, 24 2009 @ 09:47 PM
link   
reply to post by ZombieOctopus
 


I seem to remember that with a digital zoom, which the camera probably has, objects will have a similar sharpness to them regardless of distance.

If this is the case then that answers why the shed roof doesn't blur as much as you would expect when the camera zooms in.

edit -

Digital zoom - It is accomplished electronically, without any adjustment of the camera's optics, and no optical resolution is gained in the process.


[edit on 24/11/09 by Horza]



posted on Nov, 24 2009 @ 09:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by zaiger

Originally posted by fleabit

Originally posted by zaiger
Im going to go with the classic dangle from a string method. The lighting is off for it to be far away.


Can you point out the string then? It should be visible, especially when zoomed in upon. I see nothing.

Also, if this was taken through a camera-phone, the lighting of course is going to be fair to partly crappy. That doesn't rule out it's legitimacy.


Go outside with an equally crappy mobile phone and try to take a picture of a clear or light blue fishing line from 8 feet away, the camera will not pick it up. On a mobile phone the "zoom" feature is digital so you are pretty much just seeing the same image blown up as there are no moving lenses to adjust focus, so zoomed in or out it really will not make a difference.

[edit on 24-11-2009 by zaiger]


That's speculation on your part. Have you done this test? What are you basing this on? Can you point to the proven field test where this was proven? Or are you just repeating what you have heard?



posted on Nov, 24 2009 @ 09:47 PM
link   
reply to post by ZombieOctopus
 


I'm torn so far in both directions... I can see where there is suspicion concerning a small object being tied to the roof...but at this point I don't think that can be proven unless the *string* can be found in the video. (raw video, sent to someone with good video analysis skills?) I also don't think the "suspicion" alone can discredit the video. On top of that, there is that second "orb", but I highly suspect that one not being analyzed very much considering the quality of the video.

To the OP: Interesting video! S&F (in hopes it is *not* a hoax! lol)






[edit on 24-11-2009 by Wookiep]



posted on Nov, 24 2009 @ 09:48 PM
link   
I got goosebumps watching this....

I can tell you are the real deal!!!



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

Originally posted by zaiger

Originally posted by fleabit

Originally posted by zaiger
Im going to go with the classic dangle from a string method. The lighting is off for it to be far away.


Can you point out the string then? It should be visible, especially when zoomed in upon. I see nothing.

Also, if this was taken through a camera-phone, the lighting of course is going to be fair to partly crappy. That doesn't rule out it's legitimacy.


Go outside with an equally crappy mobile phone and try to take a picture of a clear or light blue fishing line from 8 feet away, the camera will not pick it up. On a mobile phone the "zoom" feature is digital so you are pretty much just seeing the same image blown up as there are no moving lenses to adjust focus, so zoomed in or out it really will not make a difference.

[edit on 24-11-2009 by zaiger]



Also even with high quality digital video cams fishing line does not show up unless the operator is intentionally zooming in on it. Just FYI fishing line is made to be invisible as to not spook the fish, "colored" fishing line is manufactured within a spectrum that while humans can see, fish do not. Anyway, I do not think its a hoax but as I stated in my first post in this thread, they are aspects that need to be looked at closer. I too agree that the plane/angle of the roof is different than the object but if the object were to "hung" from something other than the roof in the vid then that could easily explain that. The orb does not ever come into full view leading me to think the cam is on "manual focus" rather than automatic which would explain why he didn't change the focus and chance losing the main UFO in the video. I too agree that suspicion can easily cast doubt due to the nature of this topic BUT, for those of us who truly seek honest, actual, accurate proof suspicion MUST BE cast in order to get to the bottom of what is and what isn't.

[edit on 24-11-2009 by mikelee]



posted on Nov, 24 2009 @ 09:51 PM
link   
By the way.. I'm hardly saying this is proof-positive evidence of a UFO. I just try to be subjective. Saying things like "it's zoomed in too much" when with a 2x zoom, it's twice as large.. well, that just makes sense. Saying things like you wouldn't see a string with that cellphone... again, that's just supposition. You have no idea. Hell, you don't even know the make and model of the phone! You are guessing.

That's the sort of stuff that drives me crazy. People who are so obsessed with proving something wrong, they will say anything to make it so. I personally believe if this were legit, the camera itself should be analyzed, and the video studied. The make and model taken into account, among many other things.

Instead of the standard reply of "Oh.. it's fishing line because I don't believe in ufo" responses.



posted on Nov, 24 2009 @ 09:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by Echelon117
reply to post by Brentnauer
 




I just really wish I could turn back time and race out and run towards the craft.... I had become totally transfixed in awe at the time


You did what your brain told you was the safe move. Never smart to approach a UFO.

It might have been raising a large cow to do what they are suspected of doing, and if it saw you it might have decided to use you instead.

Smart move mate.



posted on Nov, 24 2009 @ 09:57 PM
link   

ust FYI fishing line is made to be invisible as to not spook the fish, "colored" fishing line is manufactured within a spectrum that while humans can see, fish do not.


Monofilament isn't invisible, go look at some fishing pictures. You'll see the fishing line in almost all of then, I am sure. Zooming in, or any sort of color reversal or other trick, you'll see the rest. It's not a magical material you can't see. It most certainly is visible on film, and on digital pictures as well.



posted on Nov, 24 2009 @ 09:58 PM
link   
Ok, how can I get the original footage onto ATS?

Obviously, I don't want to reveal the exact address it was filmed at but it was in the sunraysia district/Mildura area. Object was in a south east direction, shot on november the 06th 2009 at 5 in the afternoon.



posted on Nov, 24 2009 @ 09:59 PM
link   
Like this guy has nothing better to do than create this video with a string and present a UFO video.. that must be some amazing piece of string he got there.

This looks real... if anything he sounds sincere in his account... shouldn't that count for something?



posted on Nov, 24 2009 @ 10:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by fleabit
By the way.. I'm hardly saying this is proof-positive evidence of a UFO. I just try to be subjective. Saying things like "it's zoomed in too much" when with a 2x zoom, it's twice as large.. well, that just makes sense. Saying things like you wouldn't see a string with that cellphone... again, that's just supposition. You have no idea. Hell, you don't even know the make and model of the phone! You are guessing.

That's the sort of stuff that drives me crazy. People who are so obsessed with proving something wrong, they will say anything to make it so. I personally believe if this were legit, the camera itself should be analyzed, and the video studied. The make and model taken into account, among many other things.

Instead of the standard reply of "Oh.. it's fishing line because I don't believe in ufo" responses.


Well, until it is proven to be a hoax or genuine it is ALL supposition & speculation. Some of the most genuine of believers are also the most harshest critics simply because if you aren't, then you'll fall for anything.



posted on Nov, 24 2009 @ 10:01 PM
link   
reply to post by fleabit
 


I totally agree.

I am not saying this is UFO either.

I am saying this is cool footage that needs to be analysed by someone who can do that sort of thing.

Isn't that one of the incredibly cool features of ATS??

Edit - add another cool to make it 3


[edit on 24/11/09 by Horza]



posted on Nov, 24 2009 @ 10:03 PM
link   

Originally posted by Echelon117
Obviously, I don't want to reveal the exact address it


Not trying to be rude here by any means. I take it you are on your computer at the home you live with your parents, right?

Well, the IP address is logged and the address can be obtained.



[edit on 24-11-2009 by william.gauncents]



new topics

top topics



 
118
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join