UFOS over America right now -- Live

Coverage of UFO's in New York by Russian Television.


"> "http://www.youtube.com/v/TbPL91AUAkc?version=3" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowfullscreen="true" allowScriptAccess="always" width="640" height="390">

Here is some very cool videos to watch...







Compared to these "ufos".....

....they are 100% identical to jets.

Why this HOAX is still going is beyond my comprehension.

Originally posted by wesufmcosmic
Hey,

Good catch on that midtown cam.

So today on ABC News in the evening they ended the broadcast saying what people saw were Balloons sent up for a Teacher who had a Birthday.

So most of the day sightings now are Balloons not UFOs .

I am going to check with the school this teacher is from and see how many Balloons were let go into the atmosphere.

Your pictures on the link are excellent now are those going to be called Balloons someone should send those to ABC News and see what they say .

Helicopters those did not look like any Helicopters I have seen more like a formation of ufos.

Tell me what would three Helicopters be doing above the city ?

I want to hear all the explanations for this one.

Again F&S

That story was debunked due to the fact that the picture they used as "evidence" was taken by @jasondiamond on October 9th NOT October 13th. I mentioned that in my post here:

www.abovetopsecret.com...

The New York Daily News also tried to explain the sighting with the same picture here:

n ydailynews.com

If you look closely the picture matches the one attributed to the twitter poster @jasondiamond who posted it on the 9th here:

twitter.com...

The picture has been removed from his original post because he was caught. Or was he told to remove it due to the date discrepancy?...and by "tak" he means "talk"?

twitter.com...

Here is another article with the now infamous Oct 9th pic:

blog.zap2it.com...

...

reply to post by 0ne10


There are alot of things going on here at ATS that's beyond a lot. Of peoples comprehension.

The Manhattan lights are now officially busted.

Watch this video from 0:44 to 0:50 and 3:24 to 3:29. It has nearly the same exact view as the "ufo" video from the Empire State Building looking South.


-removed-

You see the jets in the sky?

It's a 100% match. HOAX BUSTED.

Originally posted by 0ne10
The Manhattan lights are now officially busted.

Watch this video from 0:44 to 0:50 and 3:24 to 3:29. It has nearly the same exact view as the "ufo" video, from the Empire State Building looking South.

-removed-

You see the jets in the sky?

It's a 100% match.

edit on 15-10-2010 by 0ne10 because: -removed .gif animation. file size was just to big.

You faked the EarthCam videos to prove your delusion? WOW!!!

To What Cause? Because that kind of effort is mind numbing.

You are obviously on some serious Vision Quest or something.

Lets say at the end of the day we all give in and state you are right. What exactly are you hoping to gain?

Baffling, Honestly Very Baffling,

t

reply to post by 0ne10


That's just plain wrong.

You removed/Editted your fake EarthCam Video.

I wasn't fast enough, next time...Eye...You!!!

t

reply to post by EyeHeartBigfoot

reply to post by EyeHeartBigfoot


What the heck are you talking about?? Fake Earthcam video?? It was a screen capture of this video at 3:24. Did you not even watch the video??

Watch it at 3:24.


I removed the .gif animation because it was 4MB and loaded way too slow, and because you can watch a high definition version in the above video at 3:24 so it was pointless.

Here is a screen capture of the above video, I also circled the jets in red:

A perfect match:

Now I expect you to apologize for accusing me of faking a video.

Here I am helping ATS and all I get is accused of b.s.



And here is a link to the .gif animation I removed which EyeHeartBigfoot accused me of faking. (it moves slow because it's loading)
yfrog.com...

HOAX BUSTED!

reply to post by 0ne10


great find and great work, cookie for you, in fact take the whole jar!.

thanks

rich

No UFO .... er, Air Traffic tonight (exactly 24 hours later)

reply to post by GeisterFahrer


not sure what you are getting at but remember to take into account the evacuated radar station yesterday that caused abnormal air traffic.

and your picture is evidence of nothing, it just shows there was no air traffic and no ufos at the time you looked!.

thanks

rich

Mmmm.... Cookies











and line two is here

Mod Edit: Adding "Second Line" to a post doesn't make it any less of a 1-liner.

reply to post by RICH-ENGLAND


Cookies! Nice!

...and for the finale...

Originally posted by GeisterFahrer
No UFO .... er, Air Traffic tonight (exactly 24 hours later)

edit on 15-10-2010 by GeisterFahrer because: (no reason given)

I hate to bust you bubble however they are not a 100% match. You failed to see that the
lights in the video you are trying to debunk make angled turns upward. The lights in the video
you brought up fly straight and or vector down.

reply to post by Mr. D


You failed to see that the EarthCam view is a lot lower altitude than the HD view. The HD view is higher than the EarthCam view, and is looking slightly downwards and not straight out like the EarthCam view. Because of the difference in altitude, there is a change in perspective...

The jets in the EarthCam view are not flying upwards... they are just flying towards the camera. Everyone should know that aircraft appear to be flying up when they are flying towards you, and flying down when they are flying away from you.

If your only argument is the angles, I'm sorry, but that means you lost the debate.

List of similarities:

1: Same view.
2: Same amount of air traffic.
3: All lights are flying North / Northwest.
4: Two rows of lights on each side of the view.
5: All the lights looks the same.
6: All lights appear to have similar speeds (in my opinion)
7: All lights seem to be at nearly the same altitude.
8: All lights seem to be coming from the same direction.
9: I'm sure there is more I'm missing.

List of differences:

1: Angles (can be explained)

I WIN

reply to post by 0ne10


First of all, I'm not debating you. Second of all if the "planes" are coming towards the camera
they would end up flying straight up directly over the camera and not bank up and out towards
the right of the camera no?

Originally posted by Mr. D
reply to post by 0ne10

 

First of all, I'm not debating you.

Oh no?

Originally posted by Mr. D
Second of all if the "planes" are coming towards the camera
they would end up flying straight up directly over the camera and not bank up and out towards
the right of the camera no?

Semantics...

I didn't mean they were flying directly at the camera. They are flying towards the latitude the camera is located on. The camera is facing South, and the jets are flying North. This would make the jets appear to fly "up and out". It's all about perspective.

Originally posted by 0ne10

Originally posted by Mr. D
reply to post by 0ne10

 

First of all, I'm not debating you.

Oh no?

Originally posted by Mr. D
Second of all if the "planes" are coming towards the camera
they would end up flying straight up directly over the camera and not bank up and out towards
the right of the camera no?

Semantics...

I didn't mean they were flying directly at the camera. They are flying towards the latitude the camera is located on. The camera is facing South, and the jets are flying North. This would make the jets appear to fly "up and out". It's all about perspective.

Semantics (from Greek sēmantikós)[1][2] is the study of meaning. It typically focuses on the relation between signifiers, such as words, phrases, signs and symbols, and what they stand for.

Linguistic semantics is the study of meanings that humans use language to express. Other forms of semantics include the semantics of programming languages, formal logics, and semiotics.

The word "semantics" itself denotes a range of ideas, from the popular to the highly technical. It is often used in ordinary language to denote a problem of understanding that comes down to word selection or connotation. This problem of understanding has been the subject of many formal inquiries, over a long period of time, most notably in the field of formal semantics. In linguistics, it is the study of interpretation of signs or symbols as used by agents or communities within particular circumstances and contexts.[3] Within this view, sounds, facial expressions, body language, proxemics have semantic (meaningful) content, and each has several branches of study. In written language, such things as paragraph structure and punctuation have semantic content; in other forms of language, there is other semantic content.[3]

The formal study of semantics intersects with many other fields of inquiry, including lexicology, syntax, pragmatics, etymology and others, although semantics is a well-defined field in its own right, often with synthetic properties.[4] In philosophy of language, semantics and reference are related fields. Further related fields include philology, communication, and semiotics. The formal study of semantics is therefore complex.

Semantics contrasts with syntax, the study of the combinatorics of units of a language (without reference to their meaning), and pragmatics, the study of the relationships between the symbols of a language, their meaning, and the users of the language.[5]

In international scientific vocabulary semantics is also called semasiology.

Wikipedia also forgot one definition to the word semantics.....It's called Spin. You should work
for the MSM

reply to post by Mr. D


That is all you got?

You take my words too literally and create an argument from this literal interpretation (arguing semantics), and because of that, I correct my words to have a clearer more precise meaning... and all you can do is tell me something I already know (the definition of semantics) and then insult me by telling me I should work for the mainstream media, all the while completely avoiding to bring any valid arguments or facts.

Originally posted by 0ne10
reply to post by Mr. D

 

That is all you got?

You take my words too literally and create an argument from this literal interpretation (arguing semantics), and because of that, I correct my words to have a clearer more precise meaning... and all you can do is tell me something I already know (the definition of semantics) and then insult me by telling me I should work for the mainstream media, all the while completely avoiding to bring any valid arguments or facts.

edit on 15-10-2010 by 0ne10 because: (no reason given)

Normally you should fill out the reason why you edited your post. I'm not going to get
into a verbal brawl with you. (because I know I'm right). Second you admitted that you
were not 100% correct because of semantics so why do you keep arguing with me?