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.

 

UFO Man! Is this the next Billy Meier? CLEAR DAYTIME VIDEO!

page: 3
13
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 23 2010 @ 10:07 PM
link   
reply to post by Maybe...maybe not
 


Ok, let's talk about this for a second. Are you suggesting he is doing a stop and go with the camera to create an animated illusion?




posted on Apr, 23 2010 @ 10:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by FlySolo
reply to post by Maybe...maybe not
 

Ok, let's talk about this for a second. Are you suggesting he is doing a stop and go with the camera to create an animated illusion?


FlySolo.....

Not quite.....

However, can you do me a favour so we can discuss this properly?

Can you post the link to the particular video you have in mind?

Many thanks
Maybe...maybe not



posted on Apr, 23 2010 @ 10:15 PM
link   
if this guy see's these "all the time", then why not get a tripod and a better camera to get rid of that shake (which seems dubious as Im sure theres a repeating pattern in the movement) and to get even BETTER pictures??



posted on Apr, 23 2010 @ 10:21 PM
link   
reply to post by Maybe...maybe not
 




[edit on 23-4-2010 by FlySolo]



posted on Apr, 23 2010 @ 10:23 PM
link   
reply to post by FlySolo
 


FlySolo.....

Here's the YT video.....I think it's the wrong one




Kind regards
Maybe...maybe not

[edit on 23-4-2010 by Maybe...maybe not]



posted on Apr, 23 2010 @ 10:27 PM
link   
Yes, that's the example I was referring too.

Back on topic. The problem I have with your theory is you discredit the OP vid by showing an example of something completely different. If it isn't a stop and go type of editing then could you explain? From what I gather from the link you provided, you attempt to show there are 4 seconds or so between images. Which is irrelevant to this case btw.



posted on Apr, 23 2010 @ 10:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by zaiger
Take a break you keep posting these crap videos you make. Jamie maussan is a known hoaxster.


dude,
you are lame.

we are ALL aware that he is a clown.
Just because he presents many different things from many different people/places.. doesnt mean ^%$#!
It means.. He saw the story..... and told others about it!

it doesnt mean that these are HIS stories that HE is giving to the world!

Going by your logic...
Every article written by any given journalist on any given story,
is all crap, because he himself may be a turd..... even though he covers stories from/by people all over the world. They are all BS because that one reporter picked up on them.

brilliant.

Just like the italian woman thread,
you people dont pay attention to the %$#^ that matters,
you focus on one stupid aspect (Jamie Maussan presenting other peoples experiences)...
of the whole thing, and refuse to pay attention to anything else.

awesome.

deny what?



posted on Apr, 23 2010 @ 10:31 PM
link   
reply to post by discl0sur3
 


More BS eh. You want to see how it's done? It's really quite simple.



Bye



posted on Apr, 23 2010 @ 10:38 PM
link   
That was fantastic! You showed that UFO's can be hoaxed. Tell me something we didn't know. I am opened minded in both directions so I will view the OP again but remember, just because something can be hoaxed doesn't mean it is.



posted on Apr, 23 2010 @ 10:39 PM
link   

Originally posted by FlySolo


FlySolo.....

I am doing my best to follow you




Yes, that's the example I was referring too.


Sorry.....I'm not sure why you posted that video of the Niagara Falls "UFO".



Back on topic. The problem I have with your theory is you discredit the OP vid by showing an example of something completely different.


I also haven't explained what I meant, noting my initial comments are about Urzi's photos, not about an Urzi video.

My reference to the Sydney "UFO" thread pertained to photo's, not videos.

If you want to, please post an Urzi video & we might be able to discuss how that same method could produce a video.



If it isn't a stop and go type of editing then could you explain? From what I gather from the link you provided, you attempt to show there are 4 seconds or so between images. Which is irrelevant to this case btw.


As I said above, I referred you to that link specifically in regard to photo's.

However if you want to post an Urzi video, we can discuss that.

I apologise if I am making this confusing.....I am trying to let you lead the discussion


Kind regards
Maybe...maybe not

[edit on 23-4-2010 by Maybe...maybe not]



posted on Apr, 23 2010 @ 10:42 PM
link   
Nope, my fault. I'm in two threads at the same time and I got them mixed up. I see you in many and thought we were both on the other topic for a moment. Let me catch up



posted on Apr, 23 2010 @ 10:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by cripmeister
reply to post by discl0sur3
 

More BS eh. You want to see how it's done? It's really quite simple.




Cripmeister.....

That's an interesting video.....I've not seen it previously.

I'm think Urzi could have put the object on top of the glass & simulated the movement by changing his angle & distance from the object whilst filming.

That is to say, as per the apparent change in position of that Sydney "UFO" from photo to photo.

Do you understand what I mean?

Kind regards
Maybe...maybe not



posted on Apr, 23 2010 @ 10:49 PM
link   
reply to post by cripmeister
 


wow sweet!!
pretty good to!



also.. i might as well call myself out on my previous , hasty post...
i took the op's vid apart..
it is by a string. lol

my apologies. lol
i still mean what i said though,
we cant just call BS instantly because the presenter is a turd.

but this "ufo man" vid is beat,
it doesnt even need to be taken apart to see the string. lol
those definitely arent "flares"

[edit on 23-4-2010 by Ahmose]

[edit on 23-4-2010 by Ahmose]

[edit on 23-4-2010 by Ahmose]



posted on Apr, 23 2010 @ 11:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by Maybe...maybe not

I'm think Urzi could have put the object on top of the glass & simulated the movement by changing his angle & distance from the object whilst filming.





I think this would be hard to do while hanging a string out the window, zooming out and still managing to keep the contrails at a relative size. Back to your other question about posting the link to the video...I'm referring to the one in the OPs clip pg 1



posted on Apr, 23 2010 @ 11:09 PM
link   
reply to post by Maybe...maybe not
 


Yes he might have done that or had someone (Simona?) in the window to his right with a fishing pole. That's how I would have done it.

[edit on 23-4-2010 by cripmeister]



posted on Apr, 23 2010 @ 11:11 PM
link   
reply to post by discl0sur3
 


I too disagree. Fishing line? You are seeing something I cannot, and how did the hoaxers get it to change it's shape like that? For the record, I saw one just like that over northern Indiana just a few years ago, in the daytime too. Yeah, nothing to see here, move along.



posted on Apr, 23 2010 @ 11:20 PM
link   

Originally posted by JScytale
reply to post by zaiger
 


so you're asking if a video presented by Jaime Maussan (known hoaxer) is of similar quality to the pictures made by Billy Meier (known hoaxer)?

I would venture to say... yes.


So if jaime has made some mistakes in the past and was "gotten" by someone's hoax, that doesn't make him always wrong just because he is one of the messengers does it?
In cases worthy of belief, it is the evidence that speaks, not the messenger.

Jaime has never purposely hoaxed any data, but he has been taken by a few, and what was the reason for it?
To discredit any investigation by anyone into the case at hand...
People really need to learn and look at evidence and throw out the chaff and keep the wheat.
Think about how well the methods used against investigators work, and how crafty they are to stifle knowledge about the ufo phenomenon.



posted on Apr, 23 2010 @ 11:23 PM
link   
reply to post by FlySolo
 


FlySolo.....

OK.....here's the video:



I truly think he is almost certainly doing this by filming objects sitting on glass.

It all adds up.....all of it......

- The window is available

- The perspective works

- The lack of background change (i.e. contrails) is consistent with this

- The change in shape of the object is consistent with this

It's all consistent with the sort of effects demonstrated by the photos taken of an object on glass as per my summary report on P55 of that thread I linked you to.

Sorry.....I guess this will just help to cement my "position" on here as a "non-believer", which is not my position at all.

Kind regards
Maybe...maybe not

[edit on 23-4-2010 by Maybe...maybe not]



posted on Apr, 23 2010 @ 11:24 PM
link   

Originally posted by UfoSpecial

Originally posted by JScytale
reply to post by zaiger
 


so you're asking if a video presented by Jaime Maussan (known hoaxer) is of similar quality to the pictures made by Billy Meier (known hoaxer)?

I would venture to say... yes.


So if jaime has made some mistakes in the past and was "gotten" by someone's hoax, that doesn't make him always wrong just because he is one of the messengers does it?
In cases worthy of belief, it is the evidence that speaks, not the messenger.

Jaime has never purposely hoaxed any data, but he has been taken by a few, and what was the reason for it?
To discredit any investigation by anyone into the case at hand...
People really need to learn and look at evidence and throw out the chaff and keep the wheat.
Think about how well the methods used against investigators work, and how crafty they are to stifle knowledge about the ufo phenomenon.

Such craftiness like toy models and buttons attached to windows?



posted on Apr, 23 2010 @ 11:25 PM
link   
reply to post by UfoSpecial
 


UfoSpecial.....

Muassan has intentionally perpetrated hoaxes.

Here's one example:

www.abovetopsecret.com...

Kind regards
Maybe...maybe not



new topics

top topics



 
13
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join