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: 9
118
<< 6  7  8    10  11  12 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 25 2009 @ 04:08 AM
link   

Originally posted by Regenstorm
reply to post by Echelon117
 


If this footage is real, they are German.

That is true, it is the new Volkswagen. If I remember correctly they want to name it Haunebeetle. It is powered by swastikas.
BS.


Anyway, nice footage, thank you OP.




posted on Nov, 25 2009 @ 04:08 AM
link   
This is the only footage I have seen on ATS in the last 6 months that I wish to even post about. For me, a believer, but one that demands 'beyond reasonable doubt' proof, that says something. I am not saying it is genuine or fake, but that it deserves more examination, and for me, that says something.

In my eyes, when the OP posted the seemingly unedited 'raw' footage, it upped the credibility a few degrees, as I honestly thought that, no offense intended, the OP would clam up and disappear. So I am very pleasantly surprised. I am also surprised at the responses, explanations and information given by the OP. Thank you, it makes a very refreshing change.

I would request the OP post the model (he already mentioned Samsung as the make) of the mobile phone. Obviously EXIF data is not possible for video phone footage, but I'd like to know why no location data (or similar) appears on the 'raw' seemingly unmodified files.

**Without this location/creation date info, I don't think that the footage can really be assessed as it does not give the precise technical details I would expect on unedited film**.

Looking at the videos themselves;

Yes, there are compression artifacts, but not just on the 'UFO's', they are all over, and seemingly uniform. Not unusual with camera phone videos. However, the 'orb' raising from the ground does not in perspective terms seem as 'real' as the hovering object. The perspective points or depth of field seems very different.

That being said, I also, looking at the unedited 'raw' footage frame by frame in various applications on my Mac, I initially accept that it is not a toy dangled from a roof, the movement of the UFO is too smooth and controlled - there is not the 'sway' I would expect from a model, and no 'strings' visible.

Which leaves a dilemma.

I look forward to the extra info so I can comment more fully.

FF

[edit on 25-11-2009 by Fraank Fontaine]

[edit on 25-11-2009 by Fraank Fontaine]



posted on Nov, 25 2009 @ 04:54 AM
link   

Originally posted by Echelon117
I remember clearly enough the smaller object wasn't moving as erratically in real life as it went up, I think this is due to the glitchyness of my camera phone.

I remember it coming up, it was making an arch movement up and to the right and that is when I ran inside to find the video camera.

This was filmed on the 06th of november, at around 5 pm.

I'm wondering about that second object, if that could possibly be a cow being pulled up by the UFO with a beam of gravity force?
Do you know if there were any cattle in that area?

Ko3



posted on Nov, 25 2009 @ 05:02 AM
link   
When did it leave? Why didn't you film that part, which is obviously one of
the most important parts, since that would establish it as more credible,
especially if it left "in a hurry."

Also, why not walk out and film it from outside your garage? If I ever get to see a UFO, I truly hope that I remember to film it so that it has the greatest
degree of believability... most people will only get one chance to get it right.



posted on Nov, 25 2009 @ 05:05 AM
link   

Originally posted by ZombieOctopus

You can tell it's a small object very near to the camera. When the OP goes to zoom, it does it like a cheap camera phone does, in clunky segments. I counted it pause and continue zooming two or three times, so I'm going to make an educated guess and say the camera has 3x zoom. Now if it was a craft up in the sky, it wouldn't get that much larger being magnified only a few times. Judging by the size increase of the object, it would appear to be a very small object, very close to the camera, as in, between the camera and the fence.



This would only be true for optical zoom, whereas phone cameras usually only have digital zoom. Therefore, whatever the lense pics up in it's original focal length is magnified, regardless of distance. Whatever is on the screen originally is simply digitally enlarged.

Also, I find it hard to believe someone could dangle something very small so steadily AND get it to move so smoothly. The slightest wind would destabilise it and make it swing or wobble.



posted on Nov, 25 2009 @ 05:22 AM
link   

Originally posted by downisreallyup
When did it leave? Why didn't you film that part, which is obviously one of
the most important parts, since that would establish it as more credible,
especially if it left "in a hurry."

Handy hint: Read the thread, particularly the OP's posts.

I'll let you do that and find out for yourself what the answer is.

Another handy hint: If you press the button marked THREAD under the OP's initial post, it will only show you the OP's posts, so you can read all about what he had to say without weeding your way through the other posts.


Originally posted by downisreallyup
Also, why not walk out and film it from outside your garage?

See above answer and then find the answer yourself.

Edit: Welcome to ATS. I see you're a new member.

[edit on 25-11-2009 by tezzajw]



posted on Nov, 25 2009 @ 05:25 AM
link   

Originally posted by tarifa37
I am afraid I have to agree with this comment left on the Youtube site about the video by "JRag1000".

Nope CGI all the way. You can see distortions and artifacts around the UFO imposed image.
From a video graphics expert...

Could have been done using VEGAS, or AFTER EFFECTS


Congratulations on stating why nothing will ever be evidence.

However, we must raise the bar.

The OP has no indication of fakery, and has been on youtube since '07 so unless this has been a very very very well planned out ploy, the evidence that he has provided goes before the "It's after effects, easy I can do it!" opinions.

Everything the OP has states adds up.

We must look at other things to conclude a hoax - and nothing so far shows this.

As far as I'm concerned, and for ME to say this, I think this video is genuine and will become part of UFO videos that are inexplicable.

If everything pointed to the past week alone, and if everything was made out that we must believe because XY & Z then I'd be less convinced.

Come on guys, open minds let in opinions without breaking them into fragmented baloney while keeping our minds in our skulls, which is the opposite to a closed mind that refuses to to even consider alternatives and sees fishing wire, non moving things, and blank walls effectively shutting ourselves off.

CGI is often betrayed by added subsequent behavior.

IMO this has not been.



posted on Nov, 25 2009 @ 05:29 AM
link   
reply to post by derpif
 


LMAO, why I dunno but LMAO !!


Awww you guys, now I cant view the raw coz theres no free slots on the site.

Git off dat site ya mugs!!!





posted on Nov, 25 2009 @ 05:31 AM
link   

Originally posted by downisreallyup
When did it leave? Why didn't you film that part, which is obviously one of
the most important parts, since that would establish it as more credible,
especially if it left "in a hurry."


Lol reading threads FTW !!



No, but really... try it.. oO



posted on Nov, 25 2009 @ 05:34 AM
link   
I'm going for fake, sorry OP. For me it has the smell of "My first Blender motion tracking test" about it, especially the way it moves. I don't know what a flying saucer moves like but I know what CG flying saucer moves like. Also, how did "it" leave? If it was me, not only would I be galloping towards it like a "special person", but I'd be around trying to get every scrap of detail I could until it shot off. Maybe this has already been asked, but what genre of film were the people you were working for making?



posted on Nov, 25 2009 @ 05:38 AM
link   

Originally posted by nomadros
Also, how did "it" leave? If it was me, not only would I be galloping towards it like a "special person", but I'd be around trying to get every scrap of detail I could until it shot off.

See my post above on this same page? Read it and apply it to yourself.

Don't come in a thread calling 'fake' when you clearly haven't read the thread and then expect anyone to take you seriously.

You're not a new member, you should know better.

[edit on 25-11-2009 by tezzajw]



posted on Nov, 25 2009 @ 05:43 AM
link   

Originally posted by Echelon117
It is my theory that whoever was inside this thing was paying a general interest in the watering of the grape vines below, and had sent out it's smaller orb or whatever the heck it was to check it out, collect water..


Echelon-interesting videos.

There are quite a few reports of unknown objects taking on water so your theory might be right.

Unusual UFO reports of objects 'taking on water'

Cheers.



posted on Nov, 25 2009 @ 05:44 AM
link   
reply to post by tezzajw
 


Yeah...I was just about to edit. I missed the bit about going inside. The guy seems genuine, but I just don't accept the videos...IMVVVHO.



posted on Nov, 25 2009 @ 05:44 AM
link   

Originally posted by fleabit

Originally posted by Chadwickus
reply to post by fleabit
 


Any movement could simply be attributed to the camera moving laterally. There is not enough movement to say that the UFO is what is moving.

The smaller object, as I said looks like it's CGI. The motion tracking is all off. But hey maybe that's how the fly, jumping about when the camera jumps about.


I don't think so. The awning on the house did not move at all, just the object. The camera was not moving laterally. The object was moving. In fact, it was moving left when the camera jerked right. So no, not jerks, nor lateral movement.

Not saying it isn't CGI, just saying that I don't think you can discount a sighting because it doesn't move in the way you feel it should.


You're right, just because some people think it's not UFO, doesn't mean it really is not, and vice versa. And just because you've never seen one, doesn't mean they don't exist. Although people do imagine things from time to time.


And to echelon.


Originally posted by Echelon117
Haha yeah I know, I have shown a couple of friends and they had said the exact same thing to me.. "BullSh*t man, you tied a toy to the roof".


Ow come on man you tied a toy to the roof, this is some sort of experiment right, to see how many people fall for it?
But seriously though. Do you used to be a skeptic, a real skeptic or sort of a believer? I assume you're now a believer.



posted on Nov, 25 2009 @ 06:07 AM
link   
I think the focus in this video should be on the second object (orb) in this video. I believe it reveals the answer. That object has had my full attention since I first saw these video's. I first thought of it last night, but wanted to sleep on it before I posted.

I believe it proves the string theory.

If you look at the first few seconds of the 1st video, focusing on the bushes on the ground, you will see that there was a very steady(strong)wind. The wind direction was going from the main objects' left, diagonally to it's right. If a string was attached, it would have had to be placed to the objects left in the opposite direction of the wind to hold it's position steady. Exactly where the second object appears from.

Fast forward to the 3rd video. When the object actual does move to the left, the wind may have subsided just enough to cause slack in the line for some of it brush the ground or something nearby. When the line brushed the ground it picked up some material (leaf?) and as the wind increased again the debris that was caught on the line rose as tension was regained. It sure would explain the erratic movement. It also rises straight toward the object as it should as the tension in the line is increased again.

This is just my theory. I'm not saying that the OP is a hoaxer in any way, I can't prove that. I do believe it's not the real deal, although I wish it were.



posted on Nov, 25 2009 @ 06:07 AM
link   
Nice videos.
Thanks for sharing.



posted on Nov, 25 2009 @ 06:08 AM
link   
I believe this footage is the real deal i'm in Australia also and in a rural area, I have seen a similar object from my paddock, moving very slowly, level at low altitude less than 600 meters. As I was in the paddock working I had to make a decision to go for the video camera for proof and possibly never see it again, or just stand there and watch a magnificent sight, I chose to stand and watch, it was moving in and out of low clouds about 2 kilometers from me at around 500 meters above the ground ( i'm at 276 meters above sea level here) moving at very slow speed slower than the choppers go and no not a chopper, silvery metalic with sun reflection at times. What i saw was further away but looked as if could be the same type of same craft. It was on a flight path that I have never seen an aircraft on before or since. The slow speed of it is what made me take more notice. Only took about 3 minutes before lost sight of it behind a mountain.

Any one know if these are friendly?

Well done to get the footage.

Seems they like grapes ! Whoever they are.

Cheers



posted on Nov, 25 2009 @ 07:02 AM
link   
i had a experience like this ... the disc i saw morphed in to a similar object like u see in the 3rd vid...



posted on Nov, 25 2009 @ 07:20 AM
link   
I've never seen a mobile camera phone that was able to zoom in that far without the zoom being a digital zoom (just crops in on the image digitally) and the image looking horribly pixelated when fully zoomed in.



posted on Nov, 25 2009 @ 07:57 AM
link   

Originally posted by ExPostFacto
Very nice...I really wish you would have stepped out into the open too so as to rule out something dangling off your roof line that you were filming. You saw it with your own eyes though. I can't say others will say that this is proof, but for what it is worth I believe you saw something very odd in the actual sky.

my sentiments exactly.

It seems odd that the OP stood stark still without approach.

I would have approached somewhat.
That alone does remove some credibility, but hey, ya never know.




top topics



 
118
<< 6  7  8    10  11  12 >>

log in

join