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.

 

fast ufos in the sky over Niagra falls Canada April 13th, 2010

page: 10
81
<< 7  8  9    11  12  13 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 18 2010 @ 07:42 PM
link   
post removed because the user has no concept of manners

Click here for more information.




posted on Apr, 18 2010 @ 07:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by DJW001
Parsimony? What does parsimony have to do with it?

Quite a bit if you want to stay in the scientific realm. It seems some of the supposed rationalists here and not so rational at times.


I can post hundreds of links to stories about "ghostly Indian braves." If you need footage of insectovores feeding at night, I'm afraid I'll have to ask you to provide verified footage of ET craft that cannot also be explained by the "ghostly Indian braves" hypothesis.

If you firmly believe that clear footage of a craft-like manufactured object with aliens waving behind the window would be best or equally well explained by "ghostly indian braves" rather than extraterrestrials you have left reason at the door. In effect, you would be saying the "ghostly indian braves" explanation is a catch-all for anything regardless of reported characteristics. That's just bunk, it would not be the most parsimonous explanation.

Besides, the ET hypothesis is necessarily falsifiable and can be a scientific hypothesis. Show me a falsifiable scientific hypothesis for "ghostly Indian braves."



posted on Apr, 18 2010 @ 07:51 PM
link   
okay, okay, enough! For the people that insist these sre birds, Please, for the love of god watch more than the first 10-15 seconds of the video ONLY! That portion of the video is indeed birds, because as the video clearly states it is for REFERENCE for the rest of the vid(which is clearly NOT birds, bats or kites!
Also, as ive stated before, there is an easy solution. On the next clear night where you have an excellent view of the stars, lay a blanket out and actually look at the sky for a while. YOU WILL SEE THESE! I see them every summer, Every night. Once you see them the first time they are easier to find. Most of them I think could be satellites, but some do turn and maneuver. Also they sometimes get brightet at a certain point when the sun obviously lights them or something. They ARE there. They may not be ufos, I dont know, but they are absolutely, positively, without any shadow of a doubt not: birds, bats, kites, or insects! WTF is the matter with you guys?


[edit on 18-4-2010 by theinfernal]



posted on Apr, 18 2010 @ 07:59 PM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 



posted on Apr, 18 2010 @ 08:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by ArMaP
You see, I don't like to explain things by using other unknown things, like saying "that thing that nobody knows what it is must be from some other planet, piloted by an unknown species and using an unknown technology". That doesn't explain a thing, it just "paints" the ignorance with something that is not real knowledge, just "make believe" knowledge.

Not necessarily, because you've drawn the argument into the absurd despite the fact that this is how science proceeds. Data is gathered for which there does not exist an explanation. Further data supports an anomalous nature not explainable in conventional terms. Therefore there is an "unknown" which demands an explanation in new terms. Hypotheses are suggested and predictions are made. The predictions are borne out, or they are not.

Whether a hypothesis would just be "make believe knowledge" (some would argue string theory fits that description) depends I guess on how well the hypothesis fits the data and if it can make accurate predictions.

What you seem to be saying though - or so it appears to me - is that ETs must be known to exist before they can be used as an explanation. I think such an argument is seriously flawed and fallacious.

Note: I do not agree with people saying this vid is evidence of aliens.



posted on Apr, 18 2010 @ 08:10 PM
link   
You are 100% percent correct. They are unidentified!!!

Which means of course they are aliens from some ohter galaxy how????



posted on Apr, 18 2010 @ 08:14 PM
link   
Some people here use words like debunkers, skeptics etc when it seems finding a reasonable hypothesis of what actually is on the video tape is what is being attempted. With that in mind the bat hypothesis is very resonable. Firstly the objects are moving is 3 dimensional space, so maneuvers and speeds that would be impressive in 2 dimensions are actually likely something of an optical illusion. Try this, put your finger above you, and following the tip of it move it about in 3 dimensions. Move it side to side and bring it towards you and away from you at different angles. You will see that, for example, moving it towards you gives the impression of it being in the same position even though it is still in motion. The objects also move erratically, which would be in keeping with predatory flight. Bats of that region are active at this time of year. A mundane explanation isn't as exciting as alien piloted space craft, for sure, but it seems that close minded people find the mundane hard to accept.



posted on Apr, 18 2010 @ 08:25 PM
link   
hey I live in welland ontario canada And NOBODY HAS SAID ANYTHING ABOUT THIS it's litterally 15 minutes away from niagara falls and I have mad friends down there.



posted on Apr, 18 2010 @ 08:34 PM
link   

Originally posted by watchZEITGEISTnow
It's very cute that the skeptics here are now experts on the flight patterns of bats!

Talk about batty!



Oh, it's you.....

OK then Mr.....what do you think it is?



posted on Apr, 18 2010 @ 08:35 PM
link   
reply to post by nightrun
 


Nightrun.....

I'm sorry but I can't make "head nor tail" of what's in that video.

It could be absolutely anything.

If pushed for an initial opinion, I'd say the light is shining on a cloud.

Kind regards
Maybe...maybe not



posted on Apr, 18 2010 @ 08:43 PM
link   
Nice video...it looks to be too far away to be a bat and even if it were it doesn't seem like a bat could make movements like that....



posted on Apr, 18 2010 @ 08:50 PM
link   
reply to post by ArMaP
 


ArMaP.....

I would like to thank you for your relentlessly patient & good nature, as you navigate through all that is thrown your way.

You are a credit to ATS.

Kind regards
Maybe...maybe not



posted on Apr, 18 2010 @ 08:51 PM
link   
reply to post by blaws572
 


They are bats.

Second Line.



posted on Apr, 18 2010 @ 08:53 PM
link   
reply to post by blaws572
 


Those look like birds or bats because it seems that wings are flapping; also the movement is similar. But who can tell?



posted on Apr, 18 2010 @ 09:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by logican
Some people here use words like debunkers, skeptics etc when it seems finding a reasonable hypothesis of what actually is on the video tape is what is being attempted.

Nobody sane would object to a reasonable hypothesis, I think. On the other hand, throwing just any explanation at it without anything to back that explanation up does not equal "finding a reasonable hypothesis".

Some suggest birds, others kites, insects or bats. Surely they can't be all right. Are you saying a prosaic hypothesis becomes more reasonable when the number of suggested prosaic explanations increase?



posted on Apr, 18 2010 @ 09:09 PM
link   
As a cameraman I can tell you that following birds or flying creatures of any type is incredibly difficult at the zoom we see.

I've followed many royal albatross through my telephoto lense with wingspans as big as you are tall, in 90kmh wind and at absolute absolute best I'd get about 15 seconds of usable footage per run, usually down to 2 seconds or less. They were only 25-100m away as well.
Then we'll cover falcons and other birds of prey - here is a video I made a while ago with many shots of moving birds of prey - not easy to follow again. I was a little more inexperienced back then, however they are very very fast and the owners of the location said it's common for cameramen to only start properly capturing them towards the end of the day, as they get used to the speed and flight. Bats however look closer to hummingbirds in flight pattern than a bird of prey, even more erratic and hard to follow.

Pros for bats: shape sometimes appears to get slightly bigger and smaller as if it has wings (or could just be compression artifacting/night vision limitations etc). Erratic flight.
Most bats feed at night.

Cons: appears to be up extremely high. Multiple objects (multiple bats though?). Don't see bats which hover stationary as often as we see in the footage unless they're trying to land or nest usually.
Similar sightings of right angled/fast moving high altitude UFOs have been seen by many people (including myself).


In the end of the day the OP is correct - this is a UFO as we cannot identify it. With the info at hand we can't proove if it's a bat nor if it's an anti gravity equipped craft.



posted on Apr, 18 2010 @ 09:14 PM
link   
reply to post by theinfernal
 


Dude, I watched the entire video and I still saw birds hunting for insects in the light of the casino marketing flood lights.

Once again, use you head, let's presume this was a craft being flown by someone/thing...Why the erractic paths? No intelligent being is going to pilot a craft all zig-zaggy whilst staying in the same area. As Spock would, "It is illogical." Unless of the course the craft is fueled by bugs, which are probably bountiful in the gleam of the klieg lights.



posted on Apr, 18 2010 @ 09:18 PM
link   

Originally posted by blaws572
so this is pretty intresting. ufo debunkers try to debunk this

www.youtube.com...


Obviously it is nothing more than swamp gas.

Swamp gas from Niagra Falls.

ya, that's probably what it is.



posted on Apr, 18 2010 @ 09:21 PM
link   
Sorry to say, but these ARE bats...

The size to speed ratio is perfectly identical to bats. Even if you don't know the exact size, or exact speed, you can still see the size/speed ratio in the video.

Mentally, I can estimate the hight of the bat by acknowledging the average size of a bat in that area, and then estimating how high the bat would have to be to look similar in size as the video (compared to the size of the stars). The speed at which the objects move against the stars is about right for being a bat. The size/speed ratio is identical to that of bats.

If I wasn't busy, or not impressed by this video, I would do the actual calculations on this forum... but... yeah...

Here is a video of a group of bats in the day:


I can easily see that if these bats were a bit higher and filmed at night with a night vision camera you would get about the same size/speed ratio as the OP's video.

Also the erratic flight path matches... also, the video shows some bats flying in nearly straight lines with slight curves like in the OP's video.

It would be really cool if these were aircraft, but they aren't.



posted on Apr, 18 2010 @ 09:34 PM
link   

Originally posted by ALLis0NE
Sorry to say, but these ARE bats...

The size to speed ratio is perfectly identical to bats. Even if you don't know the exact size, or exact speed, you can still see the size/speed ratio in the video.

Mentally, I can estimate the hight of the bat by acknowledging the average size of a bat in that area, and then estimating how high the bat would have to be to look similar in size as the video (compared to the size of the stars). The speed at which the objects move against the stars is about right for being a bat. The size/speed ratio is identical to that of bats.

If I wasn't busy, or not impressed by this video, I would do the actual calculations on this forum... but... yeah...

Here is a video of a group of bats in the day:


I can easily see that if these bats were a bit higher and filmed at night with a night vision camera you would get about the same size/speed ratio as the OP's video.

Also the erratic flight path matches... also, the video shows some bats flying in nearly straight lines with slight curves like in the OP's video.

It would be really cool if these were aircraft, but they aren't.




Again sigh, this video doesn't look anything like in the OP. Bats fly in mass together such as in this video and the others prior. Not in the OP. They are not bats.

Edit to add: Again, this camera is stationary. At no point does the camera track one-single-bat. If you estimate the height of the objects in the OP to be the same as the example you provided, then, if at night, the stars would never be in the same frame as the bat.

[edit on 18-4-2010 by FlySolo]



new topics

top topics



 
81
<< 7  8  9    11  12  13 >>

log in

join