It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


Can these be debunked?

page: 1

log in


posted on Apr, 26 2010 @ 05:03 AM
Here are a few videos that are so damn intriguing i cant believe that they are real. I was browsing this guy (9thprotol's) youtube profile and found a few of these that are just wow.

Here's my favorite:

Reminds me of the haiti video that we knew was fake. However, i dont see any sign of pixels or 3d animation anywhere. I dont think any objects where inserted because theres no evidence of an object moving out of sync with the background. All in all, it looks very real. The only indication is the reactions of the people. They wherent scared but rather excited. Either way, i find it to be a very intriguing video.

another one:

This is when challenger blew up. This one is real. The guy says "do you see the parachute" he probably thought the UFO was the crew escaping(which btw why doesnt a space shuttle have some kind of escape pod?, anyway....). The object is clearly not a piece of the shuttle. It sits there hovering. It also twinkles very interestingly. The footage looks very genuine and i dont think the guy filming even had a slight hint that he caught a UFO.

And the last one:

this one looks more "normal." If this where real it wouldnt imply aliens, just a secret government project. But it does behave "normal". No frame jerking or wierd pixelation. The one thing that i dont like is that there is no frame of reference or background. Having a background is the easiest way to tell if a video is fake or real. The ones like haiti have a total CGI background and its really easy to spot. The first one i posted has a very real looking background. Other than that, i dunno.
One interesting thing to note: The craft above looks eerily similar to:

a spaceship from a video game lol. I know its a stretch but interesting non the less. I always dreamed of flying it(i was like 8 when i played the game lol). Maybe my dream will come true? haha.

[edit on 26-4-2010 by demonseed]

posted on Apr, 26 2010 @ 06:22 AM
OK, video one. You have to ask yourself two questions on this one at least.

#1. What where they anticipating filming? Why where they expecting anything at all?

My guess and is only a guess, RC gathering...

#2. Why are comments closed, Does he already know what was filmed?

My guess is yes and he doesn't want someone who actually knows what occurred to ruin his view count.

OK, second video Challenger...

I was there that cold horrendous morning. I actually had a better view area then that particular film crew assigned. I could even observe what we later found to be the crew compartment tumble to the sea below. There where pieces of shuttle debris, clouds and smoke all over the sky it seems.
No UFO's, with the exception of not knowing what the particular shuttle parts where that seemed strewn all across the eastern sky.
I couldn't help but notice comments where disabled here as well and I know why for this one. There was probably a million people observing this particular launch with their own eyes.


posted on Apr, 26 2010 @ 08:33 AM
I'd like to offer a reverse question... can these be proven?

I see a lot of hate going on for skeptics and funny enough I am not a skeptic nor a believer. Belief in probability and possibility are more my thing. But why does it seem that in any "sighting" of anything, not just UFO's but even big foot; nessie; or whateever, that the burden of proof is on the debunker?

I like to take the viewpoint that all things are of earth origin and of human origin or natural earth origin in general until proven otherwise.

In most cases you cannot just say something is true but you have to prove it.

If I walk in to Walmart (I'm in the USA for law reference) and they have a video of me placing something into my pocket and they call the police, the burden is on them to prove that what I placed into my pocket is an item from the store and not some item I brought with me. This has happened to me. I placed my phone in my pocket while in the toy department and I'm confronted with security, treated rudely and escorted away for shoplifting. I refused a search and they called police. I let them make an ass out of themselves because they immediately took the stance that I had to prove that I didn't do it rather than they had to prove that I did.

The police arrive and I am asked if I stole something. I reply that no I did not. The security guy states that he has video of me placing a green object into my pocket. I tell the officer that I am not open to anything until I have seen such proof. The review the video tape for me and yes, they are completely right. There I am placing a nice bright oddly colored green object into my pocket. I MUST be shoplifting, right?

The officer looks at me and says matter o' fact like: "Well, there you have your proof, what do you have to say now?"

I calmly looked at everyone involved and smiled, reached into my pocket and with my hand still there I said, "I guess the video tells all..." I pulled out my cell phone which perfectly matched the color and size of the object on the video. " busted me putting my cell phone in my pocket. Great work guys!"

The officer was not happy that he had to come down for me to prove that I was just an ordinary customer doing ordinary things in an ordinary place. He spent 30 minutes doing his thing plus all the paper work he had to do after wards... for a complete waste of time in the end.

So, I ask again. Can these be proven?

I guess what I'm showing here is that why must so much time be presented into debunking something when there is little if anything put into most "proof" items. A simple photograph with an anomaly spurs hours of debunking debate when nothing was put into the proof to begin with.

I'd love alien life to be proven. It would be awesome and solve so many things, but the videos are presented here almost as "proof" and asked to be negated when instead most, if not all, evidence should be presented as unusual and asked to be proven...either true or false.

On the actual videos... Too many probable explanations could be given making the possibilities that it's proof seem void.

posted on Apr, 26 2010 @ 09:05 AM
The smoke/clouds in the challenger video don't change a bit. Clearly manipulated as they slowly keep it further and further out of the field of view.

Playing the "Debunk this hoax" game isn't fun at all. Its a shame its played so often. Usually starts on youtube.

posted on Apr, 26 2010 @ 10:23 AM
Clip one, CG all the way, nicely done but CG. The biggest clues are the lack of vocal cues and the fact as someone else said, the camera man just seemed to be taking a video of clouds and the suddenly a UFO enters.

The token banking run for the camera is just too cheesy.

If I saw two ufo's to the right, one in front and another directly over head while i seem to be in a desolate looking place I'd be very much more vocal apart from a whoop and I'd be scared silly..

All to contrived for me...

Clip 2, I''m sure I've seen this clip ages ago as a newly found camera clip of the shuttles sad and untimely end. I can't for the life of me remember it all but I do remember some chatter when it blew up.

I'm going with a real but unknown, most likely a cloud.

As for no responses on clip two, well I'd say that I would not want half the sick scum on Youtube to be able to leave comments on such a horrendous happening.

Clip 3....Most likely CG or a small toy, there's no feeling of a big size, just looks like a toy. 1&3 are most likely test / show reels for the amateur CG students.

[edit on 26-4-2010 by Mclaneinc]

posted on Apr, 26 2010 @ 11:25 AM
Well for the Challenger explosion, this video shows a parachute dropping down "within minutes":

I'm not sure if that's the one though. Could be.

[edit on 26-4-2010 by noface]

posted on Apr, 26 2010 @ 02:44 PM
reply to post by Mclaneinc

Im inclined to agree with Mclaneinc on these videos. As much as I would love for these to be genuine they all seem "to good to be true," in these videos for them to be anymore than CG or Challenger debris. Especially in videos 1 and 3....Hopefully something definitive will arise in the near future but im not getting my hopes up.


posted on May, 12 2010 @ 12:06 AM

If he got lifted up in the air during the flyby would have been interesting.
First of all why is he out in a storm filming nothing as yet placed in the
film, there is too much AV technology available to anti Tesla agents unpaid
in this case for sure.

More sick videos in this case not meaning good.

posted on May, 12 2010 @ 03:33 AM

Originally posted by TeslaandLyne

If he got lifted up in the air during the flyby would have been interesting.
First of all why is he out in a storm filming nothing as yet placed in the
film, there is too much AV technology available to anti Tesla agents unpaid
in this case for sure.

More sick videos in this case not meaning good.

Im sorry but you could please explain the bolded text?

i cant seem to understand what youre saying.

As for my responses:

Im only going to reply about two of the videos(in defence of UFO evidence). Now, remember, im not saying these ARE real, im just trying to say that we cannot definitively say they are fake based on the evidence some of you have presented.

First, the challenger video: The object in question stays floating in the same position throughout the video. Any parachute or debris would have fallen but the object does not move.

The second video that i think is important is the one above. The video that looks like haiti. There are a few things that concern me with the video, particularly the zoom, but other than that i find the video very credible.

I cannot explain any reasoning on the actions of the filmers, because that is not me filming. But there are a few things that look very real:

1) The camera tracking is accurate. The only way this can be achieved is if the entire video is done in a Digital Animation editor. Plausable? yes... but this is one very good CGI. The background looks very real and the sky is done perfectly.

2) There are no pixel indications. If you look at some of the hoax CGI, aka haiti and the recent one with the obvious CGI trucks, this video is miles ahead in terms of CGI. There is no trail of CGI. The only thing that looks somewhat fake is the way the zoom looks. However, this zoom is also common among some cameras as well so its hard to say.

If this video is real, i feel it is a leak of a UFO testing facility. According to the poster, this video was removed from youtube but he managed to get his own version and upload it. I find it very plausible to believe someone managed to leak a video of us testing UFOs.

I feel the above videos cant be ruled out with the evidence provided. Although i thank you guys for attempting to explain it.

[edit on 12-5-2010 by demonseed]

posted on May, 12 2010 @ 05:44 AM
This begs the question:

When a video looks too good to be true, is it? Debunkers and other skeptics will look at it once and automatically think "nah, thats a CGI hoaxer job" or the like.

posted on May, 12 2010 @ 10:36 AM
On the video with the storm.
I don't think UFOs fly around waiting for lightning strikes.

From what I saw on NASA videos the UFOs go way above the clouds.
In a video from China a ground hugging UFO gets hit but lightning.

If the read on the Tesla UFO is correct then a ground to ionosphere
force with electrical charges are involved and would you want
to be in a craft that was too dangerous to be on the ground during
lightning strikes.

Thus the base theory and leaked video might be correct if one
by demonseed when one considers the saucer must get airborne
before lightning strikes.

Tesla said his craft would be stable in wind and storm but did he
neglect to say they would jump around and wreak themselves
due to high voltage lightning strikes.

In which case sick video in the good sense.

top topics


log in