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.

 

UFO NOW.... PLease in ILLINOIS

page: 6
14
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 23 2010 @ 01:34 PM
link   
reply to post by ziggyproductions05
 



but let's educate our fellow members instead of trying to run people off the site!


I agree. But i don't feel that this is the case in this situation.

Main reason being? He gave us a "day time perspective" video that was of a different pole in a different perspective.

He keeps saying "DEBUNK THIS!" and gives us age old shoddy b.s. that is synonymous with hoax ufo footage....and when we ask for more, he lashes out....yet another telltale sign of a hoaxer.

We shouldn't run just anyone off this site, IMO...but people who deliberately make crap up give everyone else a bad name....and they shouldn't be allowed here.

The motto is "deny ignorance". not "Promote Stupidity".


edit on 23-9-2010 by Snarf because: (no reason given)




posted on Sep, 23 2010 @ 03:09 PM
link   
It looks like it could just be a dimmed streetlight or something, flickering because the bulb is dying/dead...?



posted on Sep, 23 2010 @ 03:10 PM
link   
reply to post by Snarf
 


I don't believe there is any deliberate hoaxing happening, IMO, id expect much more out of it than the evidence presented by the OP. I think there was some premature excitement, upping our expectation of the footage. I'm all for debunking, its just the name calling and wise cracks weren't needed, it just leads to ppl being afraid to post here and useless arguments.



posted on Sep, 23 2010 @ 03:30 PM
link   
Yep, youll be wanting solid proof to post and scientific credentials too i recon....
The guy tried in strenuating circumstance to get some data....then share it with....too bad the data is corrupt and leads to an indefinate conclusion but you could at least be civil.
Veterans here are spoiled with info that others just havent aquired yet.
i applaud the op and hope for better next time...meanwhile you can bet ill be taking care to post only the very best if i ever get any pics....im armed and dangerous thats for sure....
Though i must say lord if i never have to look at another fuzzy grainy indistinct rushed shakey shot of lights in the night again id be happy....



posted on Sep, 23 2010 @ 03:49 PM
link   
reply to post by tyranny22
 


Have you ever heard of planets?



I saw it too! Don't like to mock but please!



posted on Sep, 23 2010 @ 05:59 PM
link   
if it looks like a duck, quacks like a duck, and waddles like a duck...guess what? It's a freaking duck.

I can appreciate your opinions and desires to foster an environment that encourages people to show what they've seen.

But why can't you appreciate a similar desire that says "No BS con artists"??

If it weren't for the OP showing us a day time video that, in his own words, is showing us what he claims to be the same exact location, just during the day light (which it clearly is not) and the same OP making claims that he filmed it moving, but never shows us...then i'd agree with you that perhaps this is not deliberate...but since thats not the case, i have no options left but to call this a bold faced lie.

It's completely made up...perhaps he was hanging something from the power wire that reflected the light? Who knows. Only the OP does.

But im certainly not going to welcome this kind of non sense with open arms. Especially when he meets skepticism with feverish back lash.



posted on Sep, 23 2010 @ 10:40 PM
link   
reply to post by Snarf
 


All said and done.... I know what I seen if the pics dont show justice. analyze the video geez.... U people are so lost!!!! Personaly I believe U will be the ones (those that doubt) to never witness and see for urselfs....

I'll be the first to say I TOLD U so, I hope U get paid good to be dis-informants!



posted on Sep, 23 2010 @ 10:41 PM
link   
reply to post by breemtameem
 


Thank You for the support! Alot of dis-informants on here. Thanks and I wish U see many more as I.



posted on Sep, 23 2010 @ 10:50 PM
link   
reply to post by Maybe...maybe not
 


Maybe.... Maybe not, I agree with you. I also apologize for my delay responds, have to work like everyone else so kept me off line....



posted on Sep, 23 2010 @ 10:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by 2ndSEED
reply to post by Maybe...maybe not
 


Maybe.... Maybe not, I agree with you. I also apologize for my delay responds, have to work like everyone else so kept me off line....


2ndSEED.....

No worries!


I will be interested to see what you come up with.

Kind regards
Maybe...maybe not



posted on Sep, 23 2010 @ 10:54 PM
link   

Originally posted by 2ndSEED
reply to post by breemtameem
 


Thank You for the support! Alot of dis-informants on here. Thanks and I wish U see many more as I.


2ndSEED.....


Alot of dis-informants on here.


No.....

I don't think so.

Kind regards
Maybe...maybe not



posted on Sep, 23 2010 @ 10:55 PM
link   
I apologize. If you say you saw something I will believe you that "You saw something that freaked you out" I have lived in this area for over 30 years, and I can tell you there have been many times I have seen something that has peaked my curious mind. However I remember that I live in an area with a lot of airports. Alot of little ones that some people don't even know are out there. So when I see something, I tend to pause and really think about what I saw.. Also we have alot of people that fly balloons and those one man single gliders. The first time I saw one of those at dusk, I almost broke my leg running in the house to tell my husband and kids to check out the U.F.O. It was confirmed it was a glider with a spot lite. These guys go out in the corn fields and take off in the air, because from what I've heard, Some of these homemade things are illegal.. Laws don't stop people who are determined to prove themselves. 2 summers ago we had some guy with a homemade balloon practically land in someones back yard on bangs lake. Got scary. From what I heard He got fined pretty heffty.

Good luck. . You can u2u me. I teach hear in town. I'm cool.



posted on Sep, 23 2010 @ 11:06 PM
link   
reply to post by Snarf
 


SNARF, listen.....The pole U see is the pole, literaly it's childish of U, 1st U don't know me, U don't even know how the people around feel about me..

I am here to share and the "De-bunk"statement was the best word to put on here, what am I suppose to say: "Prove me wrong", or crawl with my face between my legs? please tell me what am I suppose to say, especially when U don't even know me?

Here is something to think of: It is a proven fact, many innocent people are in Jails and put to death, so put urself in thier shoes.

If u want to get religious, was not Jesus innocent? Opps out of content but the truth and the truth has hurted u....


I share and delivered and still here I am.


edit on 23-9-2010 by 2ndSEED because: TYPO correction






edit on 23-9-2010 by 2ndSEED because: Mad because its my own fault I dont have a good camera




edit on 23-9-2010 by 2ndSEED because: Dont want to take it out on Snarf, but geeez help me, help the believers



posted on Sep, 23 2010 @ 11:24 PM
link   
reply to post by 2ndSEED
 


Did you see my post???

Second line



posted on Sep, 24 2010 @ 02:11 AM
link   
2ndSeed:

You seem to equate people who apply critical thought to your claim with debunkers and then demand that those people disprove your claim.

This is a fundamental error. The onus is upon you to prove your claim, not the other way round.

Its called the scientific method.

Anyone can say "I can teleport an elephant instantaneously from Africa to the White House lawn."

Its up to the claimant to prove that he can rather than asking people to disprove that he has done it.

Unfortunately, nothing you have shown can prove anything one way or another. The onus is upon YOU to provide better evidence.

Until you can do so please stop accusing people of being debunkers or in the employ of government agencies.

It just makes you appear to be a feverish believer. And thats not good.



posted on Sep, 24 2010 @ 02:24 AM
link   
Firstly, may I thank Human_Alien for the quote of the thread..

I like to think people aren't faking this crap.


Classic!! And I totally agree.

As for the reddish blobs near the streetlamp, they are indeed reflections/refractions of the streetlamp. The colour is an obvious match, they are all similarly aligned, and this is *exactly* what such reflections look like. The source of the secondary image could be anything from a window in front of the camera, to the 'cover glass' that many cameras have over their front element, or even an internal filter or sensor cover. On cheap cameras, these filters are frequently misaligned, and cause this type of effect. Examples are freely available - this is one of my favourites:




Originally posted by 2ndSEED
This is 5 frames of the sighting last night.... I hope we can see it is not a reflection from a suppose some street lamp.

WE?? Don't presume to speak for everyone. Please explain to me - with my rather substantial amount of experience in photography and digital imaging - exactly HOW that sequence shows it is not a reflection. For I clearly have much to learn
as all I see is an over enlarged, pixellated blob, with lots of sensor noise degrading the image. It shows no useful detail and is exactly the same RGB colour ratio as the streetlamp, as well as lining up with it in a similar fashion in more than one image.

All those things scream reflection to me, but do educate me otherwise. In regard to your comments about open mindedness, I think I have an open, but educated mind. Refer to my signature...

When I see you apply some decent techniques to the use of that camera, along with appropriate tests showing what happens when you image other bright objects in a similar way, I'll start taking more notice.

But this is now two very bad attempts at capturing an image. Yes, your equipment is not the best, but you have been given plenty of information on how to go about this in a way that would be useful.

Let's hope it's not three strikes...



posted on Sep, 24 2010 @ 03:03 AM
link   

Originally posted by 2ndSEED
reply to post by boondock-saint
 


No way a reflection believe me..... My camera sucks its a photo camera like $39 from officedepot but my eyes are priceless such as your..... I seen what I seen.... 1st off its dark....


I no what you mean about UFO pics. I just posted one that I took but i got the moon in too. You know what you saw! We all think we do. I don't know what I saw but labelled it as a UFO.



posted on Sep, 24 2010 @ 12:19 PM
link   
reply to post by CHRLZ
 


I hear Ur point of view and consideration regarding reflections and so being.

The lights in the picture dont do just for my behalf, the camera was set to night potrait and if U convert the picture from RGB to CMYK U will get a better tone of colors. I can take 5 shots in 5 diffrents settings of any item U call it and I will show U that the color tones would alter from one another.... U xperts Know that!!!! Why not apply ur skills?


Second why does the naysayers constantly analyze the pictures and not analyze the video?

If U take a look of the video on the streaches where I'm focusing on the object (IN VIDEO) why doesn't the so call reflection move and remains stationary?

Obviously all the professional video experts as they call themself on here ATS, with all their exspensive equiptment and knowledge and as I may say, why dont they take their curioisty and see just see if it's a reflection , what would it hurt them? If U are expects U will slow the video down and contstuct all the proper protocols.




edit on 24-9-2010 by 2ndSEED because: TYPO correction




edit on 24-9-2010 by 2ndSEED because: Wish U was me, so U know what I seen



posted on Sep, 24 2010 @ 07:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by 2ndSEED
I hear Ur point of view and consideration regarding reflections and so being.

That's a start...


The lights in the picture dont do just for my behalf, the camera was set to night potrait and if U convert the picture from RGB to CMYK U will get a better tone of colors.

Oh dear. Did you not listen to the bit where I explained that I know digital imaging? That is simply nonsense. A CMYK conversion will simply give you a slightly DIFFERENT gamut, it is only useful for high quality images as part of the print conversion process, and you will NOT get a magical improvement in colour fidelity from such a low quality image by fiddling with colour mode/depth. To compare colors you need only look at the RGB ratios. If, in one portion of the image, you have RGB ratios of say 100/50/3 and in another you find a very simlar ratio of say 80/43/2, then you can very safely say that it is an almost identical colour, just a little darker.

It is your claim, so if you truly, informedly, believe CMYK will help here - firstly CITE your references, and then show us the numbers.



..an take 5 shots in 5 diffrents settings of any item U call it and I will show U that the color tones would alter from one another....

?? 5 shots in 5 different settings? Your camera almost certainly has a very crude auto (or constantly set) white balance, and no manual control. So any application of that sort of 'high-tech' analysis is doomed from the start. If you mean sampling a single image in different areas, that is irrelevant - it is the streetlamp and reflection that is being discussed, so those are the areas you need to sample.


U xperts Know that!!!! Why not apply ur skills?

Maybe you should listen to the experts, or better yet, become one.


Second why does the naysayers constantly analyze the pictures and not analyze the video?

Sigh. Because a video is simply a sequence of single frames. By all means point out what 'sequence' is important to you, or what better frames we can use.


If U take a look of the video on the streaches where I'm focusing on the object (IN VIDEO) why doesn't the so call reflection move and remains stationary?

Because it NOT a lens flare - it is a reflection. Yes, people often lump these together, and yes, a true lens flare will move as the camera moves. BUT A REFLECTION PROBABLY WON'T. To prove it isn't a reflection you need to vary not just the camera's aim, but its relative position (ie sideways/up/down), and also its tilt, roll and yaw. Finally, you also need to show a different but similar bright object (ie the next streetlamp) at the exact same location in the image frame and prove that you are not shooting through a window.


Obviously all the professional video experts as they call themself on here ATS

Getting a little snarky? Who on this thread claimed that? I've done plenty of still imaging for money, but no video. Being a 'Professional' does not mean you are good, or that you know the topic especially well. Do you claim to have more knowledge or expertise than the 'experts' you are criticising?


with all their exspensive equiptment and knowledge

I only have a very cheap video camera, as it happens. I don't do a lot of video work myself, apart from using that same cheap camera to show others how they can use their own cheap cameras to get far better results. But I do know the topic quite well - feel free to browse my contributions on other threads like this one:
www.abovetopsecret.com...
You should perhaps have a good look at that thread, and see if you can spot the difference between your approach, and that of the guy who authored the thread.


and as I may say, why dont they take their curioisty and see just see if it's a reflection , what would it hurt them?

What, you want me to video a reflection on my window too? Wasn't my
previous example good enough for you to recognise a reflection? If it wasn't then you are unteachable. Does anyone else think it is necessary for me to go to that trouble?


If U are expects U will slow the video down and contstuct all the proper protocols.

As has been pointed out several times to you, not just by me, the quality of thsoe videos makes such an exercise completely pointless. If you want to do it yourself, blow the images right up without realising that the interpolation is adding even more artefacts to the images than already exist, and identify the little aliens hiding in their spaceship, knock yourself out.

But here's a thought - don't believe any of us. Go visit your nearest astronomy club. Ask who is the most experienced at videography. Then show THEM and see what response you get. Please provide the name of club, so we can verify it.




edit on 24-9-2010 by CHRLZ because: my little paws left out a word



posted on Sep, 24 2010 @ 11:23 PM
link   
I'm not sure if anyone has posted on this, but this is from the news today in Arizona. Ufo over Tuscon.

tucsoncitizen.com...




top topics



 
14
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in

join