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.

 

2 UFO's filmed over water on News (NEW)

page: 6
57
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 13 2010 @ 07:16 AM
link   

Originally posted by Heliocentric

Originally posted by Ben81
those 2 things have a certain behavior .. = remote control flying object... thats a fact


I see nothing in this footage that implies remote control, but that's just me.

If they were let's say remote controlled helicopters, wouldn't the most idiotic thing be to fly them right over the water? One gust of wind or one wrong move, and they land in the water, ruined and impossible to retrieve?

In any case, now we know that Australian TV stopped evolving in the 90's, after having seen the X-files. Jesus, are we ever going to see a News Broadcast on UFOs where the producer decides NOT to play the X-Files theme, and crack witty jokes about nutty things seen by nutty people? Someone please send them Leslie Kean's new book, get them informed.


Originally posted by Golden Rule
They wouldn't be smirking after a decent anal probing by ETs


Hm, could you arrange that? How much?


edit on 13-9-2010 by Heliocentric because: something to add



I guess they'll stop making witty jokes as soon as some people on ATS stop. Not talking about you, but if you've been on the forums for a while you've probably ran into these type of people. Even some of the ones that say they believe feel like making witty jokes. I don't understand that behavior. Is it just thinking they are funny, or maybe they joke because whether they believe or not deep down they feel uncomfortable about the possible reality of Extraterrestrials.




posted on Sep, 13 2010 @ 07:17 AM
link   
reply to post by Curious and Concerned
 


I too upon seeing the video first thought kiteboarding straight away, as the curvature of the kites is correct, their angle to the prevailing wind (looks offshore, so no whitecaps and could be anything from 8 to 15 knots gusts) looks correct, and their speed is not out of the ordinary.

The only thing that keeps me from not being sure though, is the size of the sails/kites. Let's assume they are using a 10 sqm kite; basically a human being would appear approx half the (length) of the kite dimensions, so there would be some kind of visible object/person somewhere in the field of view.

The wind to me looks about 10-12 knots on average, at a rough guesstimate, and the speed they would be getting up would also cause at least a minor wake, which again would be white and more visible.

If it is a kiteboard sail, then on the one moving at least...these sails are not so large as to completely dwarf it's rider as to be not visible...given the relative size of the two black objects and their distance.

So I am not sure about kiteboarding...though this would appear the most logical explanation so far in my mind.



posted on Sep, 13 2010 @ 07:20 AM
link   
The footage is so bad, those could be anything from buoys to birds; from floating driftwood to Santa Claus. Why can't people shoot normal footage? Consumer cameras aren't THAT bad. There IS a feature called steady cam. Oh, because then the hoax would be outed...how could I forget.



posted on Sep, 13 2010 @ 07:36 AM
link   
I am going to say hoax. Reason is I have that exact camera and there is no reason for the video to be set at the lowest quality setting. Hell even in the video when they show the guy holding the camera, pause it at that point and look at the camera. It even say's HD(High definition) on the camera. This is a joke really if you ask me.


edit on 9/13/2010 by CaptGizmo because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 13 2010 @ 07:45 AM
link   
Boats filmed from a shaky camera. I didn't see anything that wasn't floating on water or lights from the shore on the far side



posted on Sep, 13 2010 @ 07:46 AM
link   

Originally posted by cloudbreak
reply to post by Curious and Concerned
 


I too upon seeing the video first thought kiteboarding straight away, as the curvature of the kites is correct, their angle to the prevailing wind (looks offshore, so no whitecaps and could be anything from 8 to 15 knots gusts) looks correct, and their speed is not out of the ordinary.

Completely agree with these observations. I don't believe the kite must be particularly close to the water, as the curvature of the kite can still make it appear relatively large, as if it was side on.



The only thing that keeps me from not being sure though, is the size of the sails/kites. Let's assume they are using a 10 sqm kite; basically a human being would appear approx half the (length) of the kite dimensions, so there would be some kind of visible object/person somewhere in the field of view.

The wind to me looks about 10-12 knots on average, at a rough guesstimate, and the speed they would be getting up would also cause at least a minor wake, which again would be white and more visible.

Take a look at 4:45 and see how small the kite appears. The camera he is using doesn't really look of the highest quality. This leads me to believe the majority of the zoom is digital, as opposed to true optical.


Digital zoom is a method of decreasing (narrowing) the apparent angle of view of a digital photographic or video image. Digital zoom is accomplished by cropping an image down to a centered area with the same aspect ratio as the original, and usually also interpolating the result back up to the pixel dimensions of the original. It is accomplished electronically, without any adjustment of the camera's optics, and no optical resolution is gained in the process.
source

This would mean the zoom is merely cropping the zoomed out images, not actually focusing further ahead. This means that if you can't see the surfer when it's zoomed out, the digital zoom isn't going to pick it up when it zooms in. Also, the interpolation of data would lead to less definition of small objects, and possibly increase the percieved size of the kite.

I think the zoom definitely needs to be taken into account when assessing whether a surfer would actually be visible or not, as the video is certainly not of the highest quality. So, still most likely a kitesurfer in my opinion



posted on Sep, 13 2010 @ 07:53 AM
link   
reply to post by CaptGizmo
 


That is a fallacious logic.

Cameras have quality settings so that you can setup what kind of recording you want, but it's not focused on the image quality itself, but rather with the size of the file you are recording.

If I want to record my whole vacation (like this guy) I would sacrifice quality over recording time. So the video would look worst than the possibilities of the camera, but instead of just recording 5 hours, I would record 10 or 15.

On the other side, is the quality. You can choose HD video, but they occupy way too much memory space, and they are a nightmare to handle (downloading from camera, etc).

So, your point falls a bit flat, if you ask me.

Never the less, if you consider that this video was recorded in dark light, in those conditions, it's not actually that bad, much the opposite.



posted on Sep, 13 2010 @ 07:57 AM
link   
I have looked at the tide. It seams as if it is coming in. You can see that by looking at the waves. Now if you pay attention to the object, it is moving towards the right. If the object is a kite he has to options. He can surf with the wind or he can surf crosswind.

The surfer is not surfing with the wind because if he was. He would not surf to the right, he would come straight for the guy with the camera. Ref, the shape of the object.

If you look at the waves coming in there is no white on top of them. This might indicate that the wind is blowing in the direction the waves are coming in. If that is the case, the surfer is kiting against the wind. That is not possible.



posted on Sep, 13 2010 @ 08:00 AM
link   

Originally posted by CaptGizmo
I am going to say hoax. Reason is I have that exact camera and there is no reason for the video to be set at the lowest quality setting. Hell even in the video when they show the guy holding the camera, pause it at that point and look at the camera. It even say's HD(High definition) on the camera. This is a joke really if you ask me.

I bought a "HD" video camera from my local k-mart for ~$80 (on special, though). I didn't use it much, but I would very rarely use the highest quality setting anyway, as it would just use too much memory. I found out that just because it says "HD", doesn't mean it is a quality camera. To be honest, I preferred my old tape camcorder.

I wouldn't say this was a hoax, although it could be. My belief is that the guy was genuine and actually had no idea what he was filming.



posted on Sep, 13 2010 @ 08:04 AM
link   
reply to post by yigsstarhouse
 



This one is pretty good because, 1, it isnt just little lights in the sky, 2, the news covered it, and 3 the witness seems pretty credible.

There are thousands of reports with these three elements and skeptics always find a way to discredit the information/footage as bogus. Unless they actually came down from the craft and spoke to you and told you where they were from and then you managed to knock one of them over the head, throw him into a gunny sack and an autopsy was performed by an expert medical team who corroborated this the body of an extraterrestrial...and when that story surfaces and it comes on the news...even then...nobody will believe you.



posted on Sep, 13 2010 @ 08:06 AM
link   
There's one thing I want to comment on that I see constantly which is people complaining that its too "blurry and shaky". Have you personally taken many videos with these type of small hand held cameras? The smaller they are, the crappier the optics are, which makes them solely reliant on digital enlargement when zooming past the range of the actual lenses. This is what makes them blurry. Plus, the farther out you zoom the harder it is to stabilize unless you lug around a tripod with you everywhere you go, which is a pain on most vacations. So give the people a break please, its not like they thought they might capture something unexplainable, they're just trying to capture memories.



posted on Sep, 13 2010 @ 08:07 AM
link   
it looked like two post above water at low tide to me. the bastard is shaking the camera on purpose to blur the video, you can see its moving sharply in a predictable pattern.



posted on Sep, 13 2010 @ 08:07 AM
link   
reply to post by Curious and Concerned
 


Ok yeah, that pretty much sums it up for me. I hadn't thought about the technical performance of the zoom...

Actually, my very first thought was kiteboarding and the guy has cropped out or hidden the guys riding using an editing program...along with cropping out any wake. But then I thought, why would someone bother, only to send it in to a news venue, get interviewed and risk being exposed?

So, going on your technical indications of the workings of the zoom, it seems much more plausible maybe just the zoom couldn't pick the actual riders themselves up. This would also be plausible, as judging from the prevailing offshore wind upper right to lower left) they would have been further away from the camera man (particularly the main kiteboarder going left to right) than the kite itself and therefore harder to pick up with the zoom. The zoom focus would have picked up on the larger, closer object (the sail) before anything else.

So yeah...kiteboarding, 98-99% certain for me.

The guy videoing obviously had bad eyesight, it was darkish (so he personally couldn't see the guys riding), he sounds like a tourist so seeing kiteboarding may not be something he is used to...and he only could see what his dodgy cam could zoom in on.). An innocent case of mistaken identity.


edit on 13-9-2010 by cloudbreak because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 13 2010 @ 08:12 AM
link   
Come on people, it's obviously chinese lanterns that didn't light.



While these are legitimately unexplained, they seem a little bit small to me, or perhaps I'm not getting the right perspective on them. Could anyone provide a rough estimate as to the actual size of these things, my depth perception isn't too great with this video. If they prove to be big enough I would side with a legit sighting here.



posted on Sep, 13 2010 @ 08:38 AM
link   
YAAAA!

More unbelievably shaky camera footage.

By rule of thumb, this is another damned hoax.

In order for the camera to shake THAT BAD, one of two things have to happen:

1.) It's being shaken intentionally (most likely)
2.) The camera weighs like 200 pounds (unlikely)



posted on Sep, 13 2010 @ 08:40 AM
link   

Originally posted by spy66
I have looked at the tide. It seams as if it is coming in. You can see that by looking at the waves. Now if you pay attention to the object, it is moving towards the right. If the object is a kite he has to options. He can surf with the wind or he can surf crosswind.

Huh?
How can you possibly tell what direction the tide is coming in? And what relevence is it anyway? I may not have kitesurfed, but I have spent a lot of time around and in the ocean. I can tell you that there is no way you can tell what the tide is doing, by "looking at the waves" unless you know the tidal currents in the area well. What you can deduce from looking at the waves is wind direction. As there are no white caps, it would be likely that the wind is offshore, as cloudbreak pointed out. It is hard to make out any particular direction of the waves, but if anything, I would say it appears there are small wind swells coming towards the camera.



The surfer is not surfing with the wind because if he was. He would not surf to the right, he would come straight for the guy with the camera. Ref, the shape of the object.

If you look at the waves coming in there is no white on top of them. This might indicate that the wind is blowing in the direction the waves are coming in. If that is the case, the surfer is kiting against the wind. That is not possible.

You seem to contradict what you are saying when you say that if the surfer was going with the wind, "he would come straight for the guy with the camera". So if he was going to the right, he would be surfing crosswind, right? But then you say "the surfer is kiting against the wind"


Maybe I'm just misinterpreting what you are saying, but I really should get to bed. It's currently 1.38am here in NZ, so I'll leave you guys to it.
Cheers



posted on Sep, 13 2010 @ 08:45 AM
link   
reply to post by cloudbreak
 

I think we're on the same page now. Just curious, is your name a reference to the magical break at Tavarua?



Originally posted by Snarf
YAAAA!

More unbelievably shaky camera footage.

By rule of thumb, this is another damned hoax.

In order for the camera to shake THAT BAD, one of two things have to happen:

1.) It's being shaken intentionally (most likely)
2.) The camera weighs like 200 pounds (unlikely)


or...
3.) It's zoomed in considerably, exagerating small movements and rendering small details useless



posted on Sep, 13 2010 @ 08:46 AM
link   
Bout the only thing I want to say is I believe it is wrong to call hoax because of the setting of a camera whether HD or not.

I am old and when I take a picture I just turn it on point and shoot.

And it was also mentioned that his camera died that is why there is only 40 sec.



posted on Sep, 13 2010 @ 08:54 AM
link   
reply to post by observe50
 


It has occurred to me some people get actual sexual gratification, sort of a sado-masochistic thrill by calling everything that comes their way a hoax.

You can't take all these skeptic's seriously.
Some of them are "getting off" on your getting let down.






edit on 13-9-2010 by rusethorcain because: typo



posted on Sep, 13 2010 @ 09:08 AM
link   

Originally posted by Curious and Concerned

I think we're on the same page now. Just curious, is your name a reference to the magical break at Tavarua?




That's the one
..Sounds like you've got a few waves in your time too? I just saw you are from NZ, anywhere near Raglan by any chance?

reply to post by rusethorcain
 


I don't think anyone is being skeptical, just being logical. What a piss poor world it would be if every video that comes out everyone is in complete denial and agreement that it is 100% a UFO. If I had to stake my life on whether it is kiteboarders or something else in the video, without hesitation I would have to say kiteboarding now in this instance.

I believe in UFOs, but I don't believe kiteboarders should be identified as UFOs.



edit on 13-9-2010 by cloudbreak because: (no reason given)



new topics

top topics



 
57
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in

join