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.

 

Virginia UFO sighting, July 25, 2010 all 4 parts

page: 10
41
<< 7  8  9    11  12  13 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 28 2010 @ 01:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by FlySolo
reply to post by alexander_delta
 


What kind of answer was that? Well, you have something to show how much better you can do or don't you?


If you are arguing that you want to be shown the same stupid blurrycam shots of nothing over and over and over again then just go watch that footage all day long in a corner.

The rest of us are tired of seeing the same old garbage.




posted on Jul, 28 2010 @ 02:09 PM
link   
reply to post by alexander_delta
 


You're not getting it. I'm arguing you have no position to complain, criticize, or ridicule without showing you can do it better. The OP witnessed something very interesting in the woods and did the best he could. Subject of quality isn't even the point. Because the footage isn't up to your standards doesn't mean a thing. You may as well just come out and call him a liar based on your logic. Based on your logic, anyone who posts video that isn't clear is a liar. Very poor critical thinking in my opinion.



posted on Jul, 28 2010 @ 02:14 PM
link   

Originally posted by FlySolo
reply to post by alexander_delta
 


What kind of answer was that? Well, you have something to show how much better you can do or don't you?


This isn't a competition. Delta and I are defending a standard here at ATS. The OP's video, while interesting simply doesn't meet what we and many others would consider quality standards due to the shakiness.

Your argument that we are in no position to criticize the video unless we can film a UFO better is beyond pointless. That's like a Deli owner telling Einstein that he's in no position to make a sandwich unless he can do it better. A sanwhich is either good or not good. It doesnt matter who makes it.






[edit on 28-7-2010 by NightVision]



posted on Jul, 28 2010 @ 02:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by NightVision

Originally posted by FlySolo
reply to post by alexander_delta
 


What kind of answer was that? Well, you have something to show how much better you can do or don't you?


This isn't a competition. Delta and I are defending a standard here at ATS. The OP's video, while interesting simply doesn't meet what we would consider quality standards due to the shakiness. Saying the camera man "did the best he could" does not make the video any more credible, nor does it make it any different from the other 1045 shaky blurry light clips we've seen this year.

[edit on 28-7-2010 by NightVision]


Let me put it this way then. Say, the footage was as clear as possible without anything else to back it up. No audio, and no testimonial. Would you be satisfied? I think not. Now, lets break down the percentage of importance of footage and testimonial. What like 50-50, 60-40, 80-20? Your choice. I would go as far to say the video and testimonial fall around 40-60 respectively. Clearly, now at a 40% evaluation of credibility based on the video, we don't need 100% of a clear shot, we have the other 60%.

And no, this isn't a competition, but no one likes back seat drivers. If your not driving, it might be best to be quiet.

[edit on 28-7-2010 by FlySolo]



posted on Jul, 28 2010 @ 02:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by torsion
reply to post by susp3kt
 


I am referring to the nighttime videos. The daylight video shows you the area the camera was filming. As you can see from that video the lights were just up the side of the hill on the ground. That makes the lights very small - let's say about the size of - hmmm, fireflies!

The image I posted has an overlay of the nighttime video on top of the daytime shot to show where the lights were and the "fireflies" sit neatly on the tree stump and dead branches as I've already said.



Strangely, a lot of people still seem to think that this was an object in the sky!


This overlay was not done to scale for the video and should not be used. It is obvious that the person shooting this had a different reference all together. Choose a wider shot to overlay then get back to us.



posted on Jul, 28 2010 @ 02:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by NightVision

Originally posted by FlySolo
reply to post by alexander_delta
 


What kind of answer was that? Well, you have something to show how much better you can do or don't you?


This isn't a competition. Delta and I are defending a standard here at ATS. The OP's video, while interesting simply doesn't meet what we and many others would consider quality standards due to the shakiness.

Your argument that we are in no position to criticize the video unless we can film a UFO better is beyond pointless. That's like a Deli owner telling Einstein that he's in no position to make a sandwich unless he can do it better. A sanwhich is either good or not good. It doesnt matter who makes it.


[edit on 28-7-2010 by NightVision]


Please state the 'standard' then please. Give us the name of the ATS manual, page, paragraph and quotes.

Now with that said; The majority of people out there take a camera and shoot. There is no standard on general photography which is what most are doing out here. You people make references like you've been in a class room and have degrees in this stuff and you obviously do not. All of you only work with what you have - a camera from a store. Fini!
Besides, most of you do not carry a camera when you take out the trash, let alone walk your dog so you are so full of yourselves! I'm so sick of the armchair bobo the clown routine on here that I can puke.
So if you have never filmed a darn thing then maybe you should just watch from now on. And no, that's not pointless. Get out a darn camera and shoot something and lets see what you THINK you know before we take YOUR word on it. PS/I got a production website and 2 VCAs - what you got?

[edit on 28-7-2010 by DaWhiz]



posted on Jul, 28 2010 @ 02:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by DaWhiz

This overlay was not done to scale for the video...


How do you know that as you didn't overlay it?


It is obvious that the person shooting this had a different reference all together.


And how do you know that as you didn't shoot the video?

I'll stick with fireflies on this one until someone comes up with a more plausible explanation.



posted on Jul, 28 2010 @ 02:50 PM
link   
reply to post by torsion
 


Please review my previous comment. The stump is a moot point.



posted on Jul, 28 2010 @ 02:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by FlySolo

Originally posted by NightVision

Originally posted by FlySolo
reply to post by alexander_delta
 


What kind of answer was that? Well, you have something to show how much better you can do or don't you?


This isn't a competition. Delta and I are defending a standard here at ATS. The OP's video, while interesting simply doesn't meet what we would consider quality standards due to the shakiness. Saying the camera man "did the best he could" does not make the video any more credible, nor does it make it any different from the other 1045 shaky blurry light clips we've seen this year.

[edit on 28-7-2010 by NightVision]


Let me put it this way then. Say, the footage was as clear as possible without anything else to back it up. No audio, and no testimonial. Would you be satisfied? I think not. Now, lets break down the percentage of importance of footage and testimonial. What like 50-50, 60-40, 80-20? Your choice. I would go as far to say the video and testimonial fall around 40-60 respectively. Clearly, now at a 40% evaluation of credibility based on the video, we don't need 100% of a clear shot, we have the other 60%.

And no, this isn't a competition, but no one likes back seat drivers. If your not driving, it might be best to be quiet.

[edit on 28-7-2010 by FlySolo]

Your stance is totally outrageous. The point of the thread is for people to comment on the video. My comment is that the video is worthless. I don't care if you don't like my assessment I am entitled to it.



posted on Jul, 28 2010 @ 03:03 PM
link   
reply to post by alexander_delta
 


My stance isn't outrages at all. Its sound and valid. Video alone doesn't prove anything and according to your stance, it does. Now that is outrages.

And no, this thread is not about video quality, its about the strange lights he saw. That's what people are supposed to be discussing

G'day



[edit on 28-7-2010 by FlySolo]



posted on Jul, 28 2010 @ 03:07 PM
link   
reply to post by FlySolo
 


The "stump" is a reference point the contours of which correspond to the pattern made by the "fireflies". Therefore it is of practical use in trying to determine the true nature of the lights.



posted on Jul, 28 2010 @ 03:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by torsion
reply to post by FlySolo
 


The "stump" is a reference point the contours of which correspond to the pattern made by the "fireflies". Therefore it is of practical use in trying to determine the true nature of the lights.


No it isn't. Since when would flies maintain the contours of a tree stump? In a lucky coincidental still frame maybe. Proves nothing.



posted on Jul, 28 2010 @ 03:17 PM
link   

Originally posted by FlySolo

Let me put it this way then. Say, the footage was as clear as possible without anything else to back it up. No audio, and no testimonial. Would you be satisfied? I think not.


Actually, I would be satisfied if the cameraman did not shake the camera, when it's so easy NOT too. The guy had a tripod and still didn't use it. nuff said.



Originally posted by FlySolo
And no, this isn't a competition, but no one likes back seat drivers. If your not driving, it might be best to be quiet.



By your criteria, 95% of ATSr's would not be allowed to comment on the validity of a video if they didn't film something themselves. In fact, we wouldn't even be having this conversation if you were in control. Your comments possess an unusually high lack of discernment and logic.




Originally posted by DaWhiz

Please state the 'standard' then please. Give us the name of the ATS manual, page, paragraph and quotes.




ATS Manual 138.95.5
Page 86
Paragraph 5

Quote:


Originally posted by ATS Standards Manual

When filming a UFO, do not shake the camera excessively. Buy a tripod if you can afford one.
















[edit on 28-7-2010 by NightVision]



posted on Jul, 28 2010 @ 03:17 PM
link   
reply to post by FlySolo
 


You do realise that fireflies are actually beetles don't you? They spend most of their time crawling rather than in flight.

So I'm saying these are on the stump, possibly recently emerged larvae.

If you thought fireflies were actually flies I can understand your confusion and you "moot" suggestion.



posted on Jul, 28 2010 @ 03:22 PM
link   
reply to post by NightVision
 


My logic is based on many other variables and not how well one holds a camera. To pigeonhole yourself based on camera stability is myopic and bias. We're not seeing deliberate camera movement.



posted on Jul, 28 2010 @ 03:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by FlySolo
reply to post by NightVision
 


My logic is based on many other variables and not how well one holds a camera. To pigeonhole yourself based on camera stability is myopic and bias. We're not seeing deliberate camera movement.


Biased only in the fact the the footage is impossible to analyze when you can't view it or properly analyze it because of the shakiness. You see a pattern here? The footage is useless IMO whether the cameraman shook it deliberately or not. It doesn't make a difference.



posted on Jul, 28 2010 @ 03:30 PM
link   
reply to post by torsion
 


Sorry to sound so vague. Yes, I know what fireflies are thanks. I used "flies" for brevity. So your position is they all hatched and began flying around the stump? So you're saying a guy who is in law-enforcement, has property in the country side and is certainly in his 40's can't discern what a firefly is?

Think about that



posted on Jul, 28 2010 @ 03:33 PM
link   
reply to post by NightVision
 


The footage is not useless at all. It collaborates his story. Hence 40-60%



posted on Jul, 28 2010 @ 03:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by FlySolo


The footage is not useless at all. It collaborates his story. Hence 40-60%


I said it was useless in my opinion. It would do you well to brush up on your reading comprehension. Hey if you wanna wave this guys flag for his video all month go for it. Knock yourself out.



posted on Jul, 28 2010 @ 03:40 PM
link   
Go to your start menu..go to windows movie maker.And add your video to it and you can edit.You can cut the video in half.Delete the other half(don't worry it makes a copy so your original is safe)Then hit burn to your computer.There's part one all ready for youtube.Open up windows movie maker again,unless it's still open and cut the video in half again and use the other half.And that should do it.I would say learn what all the features do before you burn it to your computer.

Hope this helps.



new topics

top topics



 
41
<< 7  8  9    11  12  13 >>

log in

join