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.

 

Cigar Shaped Metallic UFO Spotted Over UK June 2010

page: 2
21
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 7 2010 @ 10:05 AM
link   

Originally posted by draknoir2
Looking at it upside down I can see what Torsion is saying, and it fits.

[edit on 7-7-2010 by draknoir2]


It's important to play it in reverse, too. Upside down alone doesn't do it.

Easiest solution to see for yourself is to download the video using Imtoo
Convert it to AVI using Format Factory
Drop the file into Windows Movie Maker
Rotate is 180degrees
Don't think Movie Maker will reverse it so use the slider in the preview pane to play it backwards. You have a Chinese lantern rising upwards, canopy at the top, flame at the bottom!




posted on Jul, 7 2010 @ 10:14 AM
link   

Originally posted by torsion

Originally posted by draknoir2
Looking at it upside down I can see what Torsion is saying, and it fits.

[edit on 7-7-2010 by draknoir2]


It's important to play it in reverse, too. Upside down alone doesn't do it.

Easiest solution to see for yourself is to download the video using Imtoo
Convert it to AVI using Format Factory
Drop the file into Windows Movie Maker
Rotate is 180degrees
Don't think Movie Maker will reverse it so use the slider in the preview pane to play it backwards. You have a Chinese lantern rising upwards, canopy at the top, flame at the bottom!


I know. I can visualize it without all that... don't have Format Factory anyway.

The clip is taken [deliberately] without solid reference points like buildings or landscape.

This Chinese lantern thing is making it real easy to hoax. Can't say that I've even heard of them before this year. Doesn't seem like something that would be legal, releasing open flames into airspace at the mercy of wind currents - especially in the summer when brush fires are a constant threat.



posted on Jul, 7 2010 @ 10:18 AM
link   

Originally posted by Conclusion
reply to post by wmd_2008
 


I use to be in the Air Force and I have observed a lot of flying aircraft. I know it is not a precise science just looking and saying how fast something goes, but after a while you get to be pretty good at guessing. Yeah I wish I was there first hand to observe it, but with the movement speed of the camera and how fast it is moving past the clouds the numbers I gave I feel are relatively conservative.

My answer may not be good enough for you, but I am not trying to convince you of anything. Simply giving my opinion.



YOU dont know the size of the object YOU cant tell the height of the object and we have NO other objects if the field of view, If you are used to watching objects in YOUR field of view I agree you can have a good guess BUT this video gives you NOTHING to reference to that can help work out anything re speed!
Regarding your comment re camera movement speed, he ZOOMED in a lot so any movement is greatly exagrerated.



posted on Jul, 7 2010 @ 10:30 AM
link   
Those clouds look very low, and the object is well below them, therefore relatively small and slow moving. Since it's taken in infrared, what we're seeing is a heat signature. A very bright point, consistent with a flame, and a glowing ovoid, consistent with a plastic bag filled with hot air. A home-made plastic hot air balloon. Flipping a piece of film reverses both time and orientation. (Think about it.)



posted on Jul, 7 2010 @ 10:37 AM
link   
...and again, I drag attention to exhibit A - the original video without the music.


Where in this video do you see evidence of it being reversed and flipped?

*edit - I sent a message to evpman for the original, unedited video.
I'd like to see it without the edits and cuts 'n such.



[edit on 7-7-2010 by Fryaga]



posted on Jul, 7 2010 @ 10:41 AM
link   
especially in the summer when brush fires are a constant threat.
Draknoir this was filmed in the UK,I doubt we`ll have any brush fires anytime soon mate,it`s been pissing with rain here the past 2 days!


[edit on 7-7-2010 by Elmer_Dinkley]



posted on Jul, 7 2010 @ 10:43 AM
link   
Added the video flipped on first page just for a while ok.
Edit: removed flip video


[edit on 7-7-2010 by k3rm1t]



posted on Jul, 7 2010 @ 10:53 AM
link   
Here we go again with the Chinese lantern can you people find some other excuse please. It just doesn't seem that people are making lanterns every time there's some type of UFO footage. A better explanation would be when first zooming onto the object you will notice slightly that there is what looks like tail wings. That is something that might correspond with a blimp of some sort. But none the less no one knows what it is and the only thing you can do is speculate.



posted on Jul, 7 2010 @ 11:05 AM
link   
reply to post by torsion
 


Seriously I'm thinking you try to hard. Doing all that reverse upside down crap just alters the original footage. Artifacts can be added to the footage when edited that don't show when played normal. I wonder why? The method your using is trying to show you the image upside down and in reverse. In the end images get skewed and altered.



posted on Jul, 7 2010 @ 11:22 AM
link   

Originally posted by DJW001
Those clouds look very low, and the object is well below them, therefore relatively small and slow moving. Since it's taken in infrared, what we're seeing is a heat signature. A very bright point, consistent with a flame, and a glowing ovoid, consistent with a plastic bag filled with hot air. A home-made plastic hot air balloon. Flipping a piece of film reverses both time and orientation. (Think about it.)


I disagree completly...

The cloud type/formations would indicate it was rather high Cirrostratus with the odd Altocumulus

Altocumulus


Cirrostratus


Check here


And here for Altitudes of formations


So we are talking between 6.500 ft - 20.000ft, that some huge chinese lantern wouldn't you agree? i mean if you watched the videos you will see the witness said in TEXT its very high also, and theres no questions its traveling horizontal through thos cloud formations at a much higher rate of speed than a Lantern would ive seen many and they travel much much slower than this thing, its aerodynamics & make up materials would simply rip it to pieces or at least doused the so called flame,

I live in the UK and for the past few months we have had broken sunshine all over and Temperatures hitting in the 80s-90s often the later, these cloud formations have been developing daily with the humidity levels very high also and good old high pressure dominating.

And to who ever said about the flame being visible on the lantern and the thing is all upside down, could it not be the SUNs reflection, reflecting of the metallic object as it always does?


This thing is HUGE or at least the same size if not bigger than a commercial airliner would look at a similar Altitude, IMO im saying bigger

IS CHINESE LANTERNS THE NEW SWAMP GAS?



posted on Jul, 7 2010 @ 12:02 PM
link   
reply to post by Fryaga
 


Thank you! I couldn't agree more.

Also as others stated, how do you see this video being played in reverse??? Usually when you watch something in reverse, you can tell its being played in reverse, your brain is not that stupid and can tell the difference between the 2. Just like you said, some people take things, twist them around so it fit's their point of view, because to them its the only point they will listen to and anything else is wrong. Now that's ignorance.

[edit on 7-7-2010 by YouCanCallMeKM]



posted on Jul, 7 2010 @ 12:03 PM
link   
reply to post by BRITWARRIOR
 


They look more like stratocumulus clouds to me:

en.wikipedia.org...

These are found below 6,500 feet. Note that the object does not disappear into the cloud layer, so it doesn't matter that much. (We can both agree that it is under 20,000 feet high,) Furthermore, the object appears to be semi-transparent rather than metallic.



posted on Jul, 7 2010 @ 01:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by DJW001
reply to post by BRITWARRIOR
 


They look more like stratocumulus clouds to me:

en.wikipedia.org...

These are found below 6,500 feet. Note that the object does not disappear into the cloud layer, so it doesn't matter that much. (We can both agree that it is under 20,000 feet high,) Furthermore, the object appears to be semi-transparent rather than metallic.





Ok if you say so... lets send a picture of the cloud to a meteorologist shall we? go back and watch the video and look at the frame by frame stills provided, its does matter as we are looking at high level clouds nobody can deny that fact,

Stratocumulus clouds

Two examples of Stratocumulus clouds below which you suggested




Stratocumulus clouds are alot bigger in size than the Altocumulus and in clumpy like layers and this craft would almost certainly disappear above/behind one.



Stratocumulus clouds form a clumpy LAYERING ACROSS the sky. They are not as well- defined or as well-separated as fair weather cumulus clouds are.


How ever we can see High Level Clouds Cirrostratus Cirrus which are infact above the object in question so its certain its not above 20.000ft i will agree to this extent.

But as far as i can see as a bit of an amature weather/storm buff i see..

Altocumulus
being the the SMALL clumpy cloud at maybe the same altitude as the object, which occur at around 8.000ft - 20.000ft much higher than the Stratocumulus you suggested.

Have a look at this Altocumulus cloud for another example.



Yep thats wot i see, Altocumulus with high level Cirrostratus & Cirrus






[edit on 7-7-2010 by BRITWARRIOR]



posted on Jul, 7 2010 @ 02:36 PM
link   
Had a look at the film makers youtube site and well
thats all I can really say.

On the link to the video with no music it says 70x zoom doesn't say if optical or digital the object looks to be nowhere near the clouds.

Its also strange all these nutjobs seem to be filming in ir mode in daylight WHY
is it because it gives a nice colour cast that makes it harder to see what the oject REALLY was and suck in more ufo believers.

Have a look at his site comments like I HAD A HUNCH I SHOULD TAKE my video camera really says a lot!!!!!

He also seems to be a chemtrail nut



posted on Jul, 7 2010 @ 03:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by wmd_2008


Had a look at the film makers youtube site and well
thats all I can really say.

On the link to the video with no music it says 70x zoom doesn't say if optical or digital the object looks to be nowhere near the clouds.

Its also strange all these nutjobs seem to be filming in ir mode in daylight WHY
is it because it gives a nice colour cast that makes it harder to see what the oject REALLY was and suck in more ufo believers.


Have a look at his site comments like I HAD A HUNCH I SHOULD TAKE my video camera really says a lot!!!!! He also seems to be a chemtrail nut



Ok so it does not pass through the cloud ay???

OK if you would just click here

www.youtube.com...

0:15s tell me wot you see, you see that fading... thats because its either above or going in the cloud, clouds we have established to be Altocumulus

Why are you even here if you don't believe in UFOs and wot are you doing in the UFO threads in the UFO forum? you have made that obvious with your comments above and to back up your i don't believe attitude your throwing wrong after wrong accusations/conclusions about like a troll.

Can't see where your going with that or how this disprove's anything

I love the way people come into this thread and go oh this video has music, its fake, not even bothering to look at the un-edited ones below? or look at his Chemtrails videos this guy is a NutJob and cannot be trusted with this footage i can't explain,

Lord help us

[edit on 7-7-2010 by BRITWARRIOR]



posted on Jul, 7 2010 @ 03:40 PM
link   
reply to post by torsion
 


Your assessment of this video leaves something to be desired. Obviously you're not actually familiar with Chinese Lanterns and are using this as an excuse because you've seen this explanation used before by other members and have latched onto it because of your perceived effectiveness of this standard and overused explanation. Back in the 50's to the 80's the common explanation was swamp gas, now that this very poor excuse has been dumped, people are now gripping to the chinese lantern theory. However, Chinese lanterns have a very finite distance that they can actually travel in the atmosphere. Were you aware of this fact? In other words, there is no way that a Chinese lantern can even rise to such distances because as it rises further in the atmosphere, the air becomes thinner. It is impossible for a lit lantern to hold its flame at such altitudes. ABSOLUTELY IMPOSSIBLE.

Personally, I have no idea what this object is, but, I can eliminate chinese lanterns from the repertoire of explanations simply by using common sense. In other words, I am denying ignorance, like you clearly stated in one of your posts while chastising another member for disagreeing with you. However, I will state this, that other member should not have attacked you the way that they did. But, if I were looking at this situation from that other member's perspective, I can understand why they approached you the way that they did. The Chinese Lantern theory has become stale, and many people use this explanation when they can no longer deny that the object itself is not an airplane, a helicopter, or some other conventional explanation which fits into their world-view. Many people come up with these lame explanations because they simply cannot handle the idea that other things exist outside the confines of their pre-built realities. Its safer for them to concoct any silly explanation masked as logical and rational thought as opposed to facing the truth that there may be things that earth logic cannot confine to a box of limited human understanding. The unknown frightens many people which is the reason why they grip to the conventional explanations that fit in with their limited and narrow scopes of reality.

Use your mind. If you were to do so, you would easily come to the conclusion that there is no way, judging by the laws of physics that we are currently using, that this object could even resemble a Chinese Lantern. And if it did resemble it, it is only by coincidence because it is literally impossible for a lantern to reach such altitudes without self destructing. Secondly, if you were to judge the object's size by its surroundings, it would actually be more the size of a commercial airliner than anything. To my knowledge, there aren't any Chinese Lanterns that have been built that come close to the size of a Cessna, let alone a regular airliner. The only thing that knocks the idea of this object being an airliner is the fact that it clearly has no wings.

So, these are things for you to consider while you continue offering up hollow explanations such as the standard "Chinese Lantern" theory.

Namaste and Love

[edit on 7-7-2010 by PsychoX42]



posted on Jul, 7 2010 @ 03:44 PM
link   
"and zoomed in 70 X it looks quite odd..."

you don't say ?



posted on Jul, 7 2010 @ 03:45 PM
link   
A true Unidentified flying object. If I were a betting man I would say "balloon". Not enough data to support any conclusion really.



posted on Jul, 7 2010 @ 03:50 PM
link   
I note that the thing has what may be a lifting body design, with a narrow delta shape and possibly a vertical stabilizer on the back (the part farthest away from light).

Possible experimental re-entry vehicle of some kind?



posted on Jul, 7 2010 @ 03:50 PM
link   
It doesn't look cigar shaped and it doesn't look metallic either.


It looks like a balloon inside a plastic bag, at least to me, and (something that is being, apparently, ignored) the witness said that it was red and could have been a balloon.

Now we have to look for the other 98.


PS: And no, it doesn't look like it was reversed either. When someone if filming an object in the sky the problem is keep up with the object, so it has a tendency to disappear from the frame. If reversed it would be like the person filming it was too fast for the object, something that I have no recollection of seeing.

Edit: As I do not have a camera with night vision, does anyone know how does a red object look like?

[edit on 7/7/2010 by ArMaP]



new topics

top topics



 
21
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join