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.

 

New UFO Footage from Northeast England 7-18-10

page: 8
32
<< 5  6  7    9  10  11 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 25 2010 @ 05:53 AM
link   
reply to post by yigsstarhouse
 


Yiggy.....

I'll try to find the earlier videos for comparison.

My notes tell me there have been 2 threads about that, but I didn't note the titles of the threads! :shk:

This might take me a while. I'll be interested to see if the viewing / filming positions match up.

Kind regards
Maybe...maybe not




posted on Jul, 25 2010 @ 05:57 AM
link   

Originally posted by yigsstarhouse

Yes I agree with you especially if they only watch the OP. I think that is why we are getting a lot of flare guesses. Sad though in a way, because you would think they would want to really get to the bottom of it and know for sure all the angles before just making the usual response. I mean I thought that was what ATS was all about. Kind of like looking at a pie with a piece missing and assuming its no good. Thats silly...


Indeed, but it might just be they have not had the time to post. Also don't forget it's the weekend too. And also, there are those who are resolute any footage can be explained as something untoward and will not even look at the thread sadly.


Originally posted by yigsstarhouse
I have to say I am glad Maybe is at least trying to check into it a bit deeper. That might help clear up a few things.


Me too. I await Maybe's investigations with bated breath.

And that's another thing. Some people don't watch these videos and post because they are jaded from seeing UFO videos that turn out to be hoaxes.

Which is a shame, but is unavoidable.


Originally posted by yigsstarhouse
I am glad we have mozzy here at least since he was actually there. We don't always get that around here, so thats a bit of a plus to I guess.



Agreed.

[edit on 25-7-2010 by Regensturm]



posted on Jul, 25 2010 @ 06:06 AM
link   

Originally posted by ajax_andy


As I stated before at 2.18 on part 3 a light appears, seems to fall lower than the rest, then catch the wind and follow the same path as the rest.

This all but confirms these lights are all independant of each other, that they are "falling" from above and not one single one seems to show any intellegent flight pattern.



Maybe the -intelligence- there is that they make you think that they are flares.
I also thought that they are flares, but after seeing the first video, they really doesn't look like any flares.

[edit on 25-7-2010 by deccal]



posted on Jul, 25 2010 @ 06:11 AM
link   
reply to post by mozzy1113
 


Mozzy1113.....

Thank you for contributing to our discussion.


I have 1 comment & 1 question, if I may.....

My comment:

I don't think the single object in your 1st video was "cube shaped". I think that is a camera iris effect caused by the inability of the camera's autofocus to focus properly on the object. If you would like to, please feel free to let me know what you think about that.


My question:

Why did you choose that location & time from which to film?


Kind regards
Maybe...maybe not



posted on Jul, 25 2010 @ 06:15 AM
link   
I also want to ask something: Can we see the same place where the object appear at day time?
There might be a hill, and the chinese lanterns may go that way because of the strong wind.

[edit on 25-7-2010 by deccal]



posted on Jul, 25 2010 @ 06:23 AM
link   
reply to post by Maybe...maybe not
 


Hey Maybe,

I went to look at that site and I noticed they were " one of the longest standing UFO study groups in the state of Wisconsin."

Now Im not saying they can't have anything to do with folks in England, but somehow these guys dont strike me as some that would umm have that much stretch, if you will. I am awaiting what you do find though as I know you are very diligent, and this must have sparked something in you to check this deep into it.

I know Mozzy stated earlier why they hadn't gone to the news right off the bat but Regensturm does have a valid point about it should have been very first thought as opposed to you tube.

and yes I would like to say a daytime view as well if possible



posted on Jul, 25 2010 @ 06:30 AM
link   
reply to post by yigsstarhouse
 


G'day Yiggy!

I can't remember how it all linked & I could well be wrong.

It's just that the location from which the 1st video has been filmed looks very similar, as does the "path" of the object.

I can just see it.....I'm gonna PWN myself here for sure!

Oh well.....it's been at least a week since I've done that!


Cheers
Maybe...maybe not



posted on Jul, 25 2010 @ 06:36 AM
link   

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


G'day Yiggy!

I can't remember how it all linked & I could well be wrong.

It's just that the location from which the 1st video has been filmed looks very similar, as does the "path" of the object.

I can just see it.....I'm gonna PWN myself here for sure!

Oh well.....it's been at least a week since I've done that!


Cheers
Maybe...maybe not



lol now you know I am sitting here laughing about that.
Perhaps if you gave a us a clue to what you are searching for we could perhaps help you find it?



posted on Jul, 25 2010 @ 06:43 AM
link   
reply to post by yigsstarhouse
 


Yiggy.....

I'm really just looking for that similar video as mentioned.

I can't tell you what to search for because I'm not sure myself.

I'll do a really good search tonight / tomorrow in my notes & on ATS & externally & see what I come up with.

Cheers again
Maybe...maybe not



posted on Jul, 25 2010 @ 06:54 AM
link   
If the camera is pointing towards Jarrow then it is in line with the Swan Hunter shipyard. Though they no longer manufacture ships they do still work on marine projects.

It may be worth checking if they had any night work going on at that time that involved the use of flares.

Google Earth 54°59'4.74"N 1°31'53.89"W

Swan Hunter



posted on Jul, 25 2010 @ 07:12 AM
link   
At exactly the 5:00 mark, while all lights are traveling from left to right, the light that appears at the top left at 5:00 falls considerably, i would assume that the parachute on the flare had trouble opening, when it does open, it joins the current "flow" of the others. i would say flares.



posted on Jul, 25 2010 @ 07:19 AM
link   
First of all I wish people would stop using the word 'debunk' when they really mean 'analyse'

Debunk in the dictionary means : "To expose or ridicule false, sham, or exaggerated claims"

Now my comments.

The lights seem to go out and then come back again. That would mean that they are not flares or candles in a lantern. Having said that, it could be that they are flares and new flares are replacing the ones that have gone off.

I have seen something similar during daytime. I was filming a contrail and a light started to appear in it, move a short didtance and then the light went off.

In my opinion it is possible that it is a natural phenomenon (electrical discharge or something similar) or intelligent entities/sprites (I have to keep an open mind).

I do not believe that these people from the Franciosi website need to be 'interogated'. They never offered the footage to ATS. Indeed their website suggest that they are generally into all aspects of the paranormal. If I was them , the last thing I would do is offer my footage to ATS and receive character assassination. So why are we sending the Spanish Inquisition after them ?




[edit on 25-7-2010 by crowdedskies]



posted on Jul, 25 2010 @ 07:39 AM
link   

Originally posted by crowdedskies

I do not believe that these people from the Franciosi website need to be 'interogated'. They never offered the footage to ATS. Indeed their website suggest that they are generally into all aspects of the paranormal. If I was them , the last thing I would do is offer my footage to ATS and receive character assassination. So why are we sending the Spanish Inquisition after them ?


If the footage is published in the public domain, then the group should expect questions surrounding the circumstances of their sighting and other such matters.

As that footage is in the public domain, then the result is ATS has picked it up and there is a discussion about it.

This is not about the Spanish Inquisition, this is about abiding to the motto of ATS:

Deny Ignorance.

By asking questions, and hopefully getting answers, we are denying ignorance, we bid ignorance goodnight and say good day to knowledge and understanding.

There will be those who watch the video and wonder, and there will be those who watch the video, offer their view, and wish to ask questions to get a better understanding of the video and how, when, where it was taken.


Maybe has concerns, and Maybe knows it's up to him to prove his concerns are correct.

If we can not ask questions, if indeed we can not question, and if that was the mantra of ATS, then ATS would be diminished, where videos, articles and photos of events are posted, but which should never be scrutinised and questioned.

And denying ignorance would be impossible.

This is not character assassination, this is simply a discussion of a reported UFO sighting which will quite naturally raise inquisitiveness, not inquisition, and will lead to questions being asked, and hopefully some answers.

We simply want to deny ignorance, and learn and perhaps eventually, know what this video is showing.

[edit on 25-7-2010 by Regensturm]



posted on Jul, 25 2010 @ 07:50 AM
link   
reply to post by Regensturm
 


Thanks for your comments. I agree with it being discussed since it was in the public domain after all. However I feel the photographer is entitled not to be harassed and questionned. He never directly offered the footage to ATS.

It will end up in him having to defend himself and his character. He will need to face the gauntlet of skeptics and accusers.



posted on Jul, 25 2010 @ 08:04 AM
link   
reply to post by crowdedskies
 


Crowdedskies.....

I wasn't meaning to sound demanding when I posted my comment & my question.

I posted with the intention of constructive & positive discussion.

Kind regards
Maybe...maybe not



posted on Jul, 25 2010 @ 08:09 AM
link   
I have no problem with being questioned, I wish to get to the bottom of this as much as you guys do. In order to find the truth we must rule out all possible logical explanations before jumping to a paranormal conclusion. I am a ghost hunter first and foremost, and know very little about UFOs, so all of this is new to me, and very interesting, I feel I am learning stuff.

In reply to comments, we have no connection whatsoever with "the light side" group that was mentioned, we are a non-profit, amateur paranormal society that was formed recently in january, we only have 5 members, and we have no links to other groups. I assure you we would never intentionally fake anything, as that damamges the credibility of the whole field.

The reason we were up there in the first place is, ironically, we were on a ghost hunt, as the cleadon mill is supposedly haunted. It was simply by chance we saw these lights and filmed them, they werent the reason we were up there.

I was of the opinion that we should immediately take this footage to the media, but the reason we didnt is because paul said he wanted to analyse it first to be sure, and then also for the reasons I stated. However, I was since convinced it would be best to show the media, and last night I emailed a local radio station that specialises in "paranormal" events, and I have informed the local newspaper. Soon, me and paul will also show the television.

I will look into windspeed and direction etc, and get back to you.

Like I said, I am not claiming these are alien craft, I am just stumped by them like you guys are. They may have a perfectly logical explanation, but noone has been able to find it yet.



posted on Jul, 25 2010 @ 08:09 AM
link   

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


Crowdedskies.....

I wasn't meaning to sound demanding when I posted my comment & my question.

I posted with the intention of constructive & positive discussion.

Kind regards
Maybe...maybe not


Maybe..maybe not , I did not have you in mind when posting my comment. I simply noticed that there was a general consensus that the organisation in question and the photographer should be contacted by ATS members. This is what prompted my comment.



posted on Jul, 25 2010 @ 08:12 AM
link   
reply to post by crowdedskies
 


Crowdedskies.....

Sorry.....I thought that was directed at me!


Anyway, the point you make is entirely reasonable & I will be very careful to be polite & concise, if I engage in a dialogue with those guys.

Cheers
Maybe...maybe not



posted on Jul, 25 2010 @ 08:13 AM
link   
reply to post by mozzy1113
 


Could you please take a day time photo, so we can see whether there are hills or not?
Thank you...



posted on Jul, 25 2010 @ 08:15 AM
link   

Originally posted by crowdedskies

I do not believe that these people from the Franciosi website need to be 'interogated'. They never offered the footage to ATS. Indeed their website suggest that they are generally into all aspects of the paranormal. If I was them , the last thing I would do is offer my footage to ATS and receive character assassination. So why are we sending the Spanish Inquisition after them ?




[edit on 25-7-2010 by crowdedskies]


Let me state for the record I find this footage very interesting. So much so that I dont think it falls under the usual little lights in the skies videos that we usually see.
I am not trying to send anyone on a witch hunt either. I think we are lucky to have one of the people that was actually there, so hence I think we are trying to learn as much about it as possible. At least I am and can only speak for myself.

I just find this thread unusually quiet for the "analyst" that are usually around in pretty strong force.

That in itselfs makes me thing that either a. they aren't watching it, b., they watched it but aren't sure themselves, c., they are waiting to hear what others have to say, d., something I haven't thought of yet but Im sure someone will point out!

That is my 2 cents on it anyway



new topics

top topics



 
32
<< 5  6  7    9  10  11 >>

log in

join