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: 4
13
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 23 2010 @ 11:34 PM
link   
reply to post by hippomchippo
 


Okay I digress,

If Jaime is behind these types of things then lets really expose that.
So far I havn't seen any real proof that he is behind hoaxes.
All I was trying to say was to examine the evidence and not the messenger, and if it is models and little trinkets, then that says a thousand words.. But you come to those conclusions based on evidence. I only say this because I have mostly seen his narrations of the sightings that were seen by hundreds of witnesses and were genuine sightings. And yes I think he might be pretty gullable either get punked or does it by himself for wanting something to be true, who knows,.




posted on Apr, 23 2010 @ 11:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by autowrench
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.


Do you see a fishing line in the video I posted? I sure don't. The object doesn't actually change it's shape at 9:10, Urzi zooms in and focuses on the thing.



posted on Apr, 23 2010 @ 11:40 PM
link   
reply to post by UfoSpecial
 


UfoSpecial.....

In addition to the other link I sent to you.....

You should also read this, as collated by the great Internos.

www.abovetopsecret.com...

Maussan is a shocker.....don't go soft on him or we're all sunk.....we may as well go play in the reptilian threads.

Kind regards
Maybe...maybe not



posted on Apr, 23 2010 @ 11:41 PM
link   
reply to post by Maybe...maybe not
 


Not so sure about that. At the 2:54 mark if he's moving around to make the object appear in flight, then he would have to be raising his camera up vertically. The object passes clouds. By him panning upward to keep it in view ( without filming the inside of the house) the window would have to be open.

Edit to add:

The object is moving forward/up while he maintains its position in the view finder. If the object was stationary on a string and he is panning up (now it is almost directly above him) then the object would appear to be going south, not north for the sake of argument of direction.

[edit on 23-4-2010 by FlySolo]



posted on Apr, 23 2010 @ 11:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by cripmeister

Originally posted by autowrench
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.


Do you see a fishing line in the video I posted? I sure don't. The object doesn't actually change it's shape at 9:10, Urzi zooms in and focuses on the thing.


You don't see the fishing line because the demonstrator is moving around too quickly. It's hard to even stay focused on the whatchamacallit never mind catch a glimpse of the line.



posted on Apr, 23 2010 @ 11:42 PM
link   

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


Not so sure about that. At the 2:54 mark if he's moving around to make the object appear in flight, then he would have to be raising his camera up vertically. The object passes clouds. By him panning upward to keep it in view ( without filming the inside of the house) the window would have to be open.


FlySolo.....

OK.....I'll have another look at that in about 15 mins.

Kind regards
Maybe...maybe not



posted on Apr, 23 2010 @ 11:58 PM
link   
Yeah been reading up on jaime, which I should have done much sooner....
My conclusion now is: If I was jaime I would be "skipping bail" or jumping bail heh



posted on Apr, 24 2010 @ 12:06 AM
link   
reply to post by discl0sur3
 


Many ufo stories and fottages abound. Majority mistaken beliefs.

But I ask, Why do we continue to ape at this alleged ufos. Don't you think, its time we built our own



posted on Apr, 24 2010 @ 12:16 AM
link   

Originally posted by fuserleer
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??

He has upgraded his camera. If you compare the footage of his early stuff with the latest, you can see an obvious difference. Not sure how much a tripod would help him out as most of his videos are shot on his tip toes.



posted on Apr, 24 2010 @ 12:17 AM
link   
reply to post by savvys84
 


Savvys84.....

Congratulations!

You found your way out of your antigravity thread


Tell me.....

Do you think Urzi's objects utilise antigravity technology?

I guess you could either:

1. Announce your answer & specify you do not wish to discuss it

.....or.....

2. Announce your answer & specify you do not wish to discuss it

Regards
Maybe...maybe not



posted on Apr, 24 2010 @ 12:30 AM
link   

Originally posted by autowrench

You don't see the fishing line because the demonstrator is moving around too quickly. It's hard to even stay focused on the whatchamacallit never mind catch a glimpse of the line.


It depends on video quality, type/diameter of line used and lighting conditions. I am going with this explanation because it's the easiest one to pull off. Are you saying that an actual flying saucer outside Urzi's house is a more likely explanation?



posted on Apr, 24 2010 @ 12:39 AM
link   
reply to post by cripmeister
 


I'm saying why not? I'm not seeing any explanation thus far other than theories of strings, moving around to give the illusion of movement, objects placed on the window, etc. No one has unequivocally shown anything besides speculation and comparisons to irrelevant clips and still photos. Scroll up to my observation on the camera panning without filming the inside of the house.



posted on Apr, 24 2010 @ 12:42 AM
link   

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

At the 2:54 mark if he's moving around to make the object appear in flight, then he would have to be raising his camera up vertically. The object passes clouds. By him panning upward to keep it in view ( without filming the inside of the house) the window would have to be open.

The object is moving forward/up while he maintains its position in the view finder. If the object was stationary on a string and he is panning up (now it is almost directly above him) then the object would appear to be going south, not north for the sake of argument of direction.


FlySolo.....

I looked at that section several times.



I think it could still be done via the "object on glass" method, based on my own work viewing objects on glass via a camera.

If you try it yourself, you'll be amazed how much apparent movement you can generate if you are working close to the object.

Additionally.....you would not film the inside of the house if you were working close to the glass because the field of view of the camera would be smaller than the "field of view" of the glass. I base that on comparing it with working inside the car, wherein the windscreen surrounds & car interior were not shown in the photos or through the viewfinder.

The film would be difficult to make, but I believe Urzi would practice & rehearse this a lot, with many "dry run" videos being produced.

Kind regards
Maybe...maybe not

[edit on 24-4-2010 by Maybe...maybe not]



posted on Apr, 24 2010 @ 12:47 AM
link   

Originally posted by Violater1
These are some of the clearest videos that I have seen, however he still needs a tripod.


If you watch the video carefully, you'll see that he has one.



posted on Apr, 24 2010 @ 12:58 AM
link   

Originally posted by Maybe...maybe not
reply to post by savvys84
 


Savvys84.....

Congratulations!

You found your way out of your antigravity thread


Tell me.....

Do you think Urzi's objects utilise antigravity technology?

I guess you could either:

1. Announce your answer & specify you do not wish to discuss it

.....or.....

2. Announce your answer & specify you do not wish to discuss it

Regards
Maybe...maybe not


Lol maybe.
With my dial up modem, my cell phone. I cannot watch any videos. They take forever to load.
But by the looks of the still photo that appears on the video screen, its fuzzy and the ufo does not have the fineese of any out of the world technology.

rgds



posted on Apr, 24 2010 @ 12:59 AM
link   
Ok then, let's examine the "on the window" for a moment:



I guess we both can safely agree that this window appears to be on a 45 degree sloped roof.

Window closed (which I'm sure its not) we get this:


Are you still willing to stand by this? The craft is angular, not flush on the glass and let's not forget about gravity. Perhaps double sided sticky tape? Seriously, there are some flaws with the string and on the glass theories.



posted on Apr, 24 2010 @ 01:02 AM
link   
reply to post by FlySolo
 


FlySolo.....

Just to illustrate my point to you & other members.....

Here's a very rough GIF made by CHRLZ showing the effect to which I am referring:



Posted by CHRLZ:

Here's a rather crude preliminary look at the behaviour of objects stuck on a windscreen...



It is VERY clear that the background scene is almost completely unchanged, yet by very small movements of the camera I could place the stone chips and sticky-taped paper all over the place, wherever I wanted.

www.abovetopsecret.com...


CHRLZ is very good with this sort of thing.....I have U2U'd him to let him know about our discussion in case he wants to drop in.

Kind regards
Maybe...maybe not



posted on Apr, 24 2010 @ 01:08 AM
link   
reply to post by FlySolo
 


FlySolo.....

I still think he could be hoaxing it by sticking objects to the glass.

Have a look at the GIF I just posted (above).

Also....go & try it yourself.....stick something on the windscreen of your can & get close to the object whilst looking through your camera & then move around.

I believe you'll be very surprised at the result.

You state there are problems with the "glass & string" theories......well I agree it would be difficult to perfect the techniques.

But remember.....he has huge motivation & plenty of time to perfect this.

Kind regards
Maybe...maybe not



posted on Apr, 24 2010 @ 01:11 AM
link   
reply to post by FlySolo
 


FlySolo.....

Just thinking again.....

The angle of the window can be changed.



I'm thinking that would add even more flexibile geometry which Urzi could utilise for his photos & videos.

Kind regards
Maybe...maybe not

[edit on 24-4-2010 by Maybe...maybe not]



posted on Apr, 24 2010 @ 01:13 AM
link   

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


FlySolo.....

Just to illustrate my point to you & other members.....

Here's a very rough GIF made by CHRLZ showing the effect to which I am referring:



Posted by CHRLZ:

Here's a rather crude preliminary look at the behaviour of objects stuck on a windscreen...



It is VERY clear that the background scene is almost completely unchanged, yet by very small movements of the camera I could place the stone chips and sticky-taped paper all over the place, wherever I wanted.

www.abovetopsecret.com...


CHRLZ is very good with this sort of thing.....I have U2U'd him to let him know about our discussion in case he wants to drop in.

Kind regards
Maybe...maybe not


That was very crude and I would never have wasted any time on it. Its like bringing a knife to a gun fight and I fail to see how we can discuss this while being referred to something not even in the same ball park.

My question was simple and you're a sharp guy.
Let me reiterate my points:
1. the roof window is on too much of an angle and anything would slide off. Hours of dry runs will never prevent this.

2. dangling a string with it attached over the window would not allow for forward movement while panning up. It would be the opposite. Pan down object goes up.

3. Panning up/down would show the window edge so, the camera must be outside the window.



[edit on 24-4-2010 by FlySolo]



new topics

top topics



 
13
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join