Web like substance falling from sky w/photos.

Out here in southern Ontario, I have been noticing the same thing as well.

I am very aware that spiders like to "fly" in the air currents, but despite the nice weather, if the temp is around 10 degrees Celsius and under..spiders and insects tend to "hide" because it's too cold.

On Monday I noticed a TON of chemtrails in the GTA, and observed quite a few planes that were not following normal flight paths.

The chemtrails I observed grew very thick but dispersed very slowly... and the air looked "shiny" kinda like a fog or mist but it is not! It reminded me of millions of tiny spider webs in the air. I had a hard time breathing that day as well. It was most noticeable during sunset, the way the sun was reflecting off this "mist" that was falling from the sky..it was creepy. I made note of it to my boyfriend when I was driving him back from work... but he doesn't believe in chemtrails... but did acknowledge the amount of "contrails" and low flying planes.

One thing I noticed as well, was the amount of static on the radio too. Normally i get great reception driving, but that day almost every two seconds all I was getting was white noise over the music. I wonder if that has something to do with it.

reply to post by mark1167

Sorry for just getting to this but your footage was really cool! Thanks for sharing it. Your fly fishing spider is way closer to the camera than what I was seeing, but it really does look similar (just smaller).

I seriously doubt that this is some of the legendary "angel hair," which has in the past been described (and ascribed) to UFOs in some way. Angel hair has a tendency to be sticky, fall in clumps, and it disintegrates relatively quickly.

These look like photos of... webs. As people have said, the sky is filled with webs and seeds and all kinds of junk. Take a photo of the sky with the sun near the background (don't fry your camera!), and you'll see it.

Originally posted by SeenMyShare
reply to post by gift0fpr0phecy

 

From your own link re the Kodak Z1012

(*) In digital cameras, manual focus is often implemented on a fly-by-wire basis, whereby the manual inputs to focus in or out are relayed to the autofocus system which effects the change in focus.

From your own link re the Canon S5 IS

(*) In digital cameras, manual focus is often implemented on a fly-by-wire basis, whereby the manual inputs to focus in or out are relayed to the autofocus system which effects the change in focus.

Well now it is quite obvious you lack much needed knowledge of both how to work a camera, and how to read.

The "autofocus system" is a series of motors which move the lenses of the camera to focus on objects. Sensors and software then control the motors to get a focused picture. When you switch a camera to "manual focus" you override the sensors and software and you have direct control over the motors with buttons. "Fly-by-wire" means you have buttons which electronically control the motors opposed to having actual physical knobs to turn by hand.

All you did was prove that your cameras have manual focus, and that you have no clue what you are talking about.

Originally posted by SeenMyShare
For the love of all that's holy did you not read where I SAID I used the Kodak and the Canon??? and that the album had photos from all four cameras?

Of course I read where you said that, I even researched each one of the cameras you claimed to use and found supporting references that prove what I say is true. Do you not remember??

Also, I looked at the EXIF data on all of your images. You only used TWO cameras, not four. You used only the Kodak Z1012 and the Canon S5 IS which both have manual focus.

Originally posted by SeenMyShare
The autofocus on a POINT AND SHOOT is much faster than the MANUAL override which STILL FEEDS TO THE AUTOFOCUS.

"Point and shoot" just means automatic settings. I know that auto focus is faster than manual focus because it is all automatic. The manual override only controls the motors that move the lenses... nothing else. Camera that don't have auto focus you have to actually screw the lenses in and out to get a focus, but auto focus cameras use motors in stead. When you switch a camera with auto focus to manual focus, you gain control over the motors with buttons. It's like screwing the lenses in and out but not with your hands, with motors instead.

Obviously you have no clue how a camera works, or how to use one.

Originally posted by SeenMyShare
You asked for video today of a phenomenon that happened yesterday and are calling me a hoaxer when I can't produce it? Sigh.

I asked you if you could get a video and all you said was no because you can't focus on it. I told you to use manual focus, and you keep claiming you don't have manual focus, BUT YOU DO. Now this is very suspicious to me... why would you claim you don't have manual focus when you do? Why would you use that as an excuse? Now I think this is a hoax because you are giving me the run around and making up false information about your cameras. It has nothing to do with not being able to produce evidence.

However, you are making claims that you watched the webs "form and disintegrate", and now that you have zero credibility, I have to ask for some type of video proof of this claim before I buy your story.

Originally posted by SeenMyShare
I've nothing more to say to you. I've provided a very honest evaluation and photos to the best of my ability to show/explain what I saw yesterday. I posted two lists of cameras for you. The ones used yesterday and the ones used for the photos in the album I posted. In all seriousness I want to see you take good timely photos with the manual focus of a point and shoot. They are in no way comparable to an slr or dslr and for you to expect dslr quality or reactions from a point and shoot shows you are nitpicking.

I think you are mistaking me for someone else. The quality of your pictures are fine... I only asked for VIDEO of your claims, and you gave me some b.s. about not having manual focus.

I know how cameras work.... I know how focus works. Obviously you don't.

Once you have focused on a certain distance you don't need to make any large adjustments. Anything auto focus can focus on, manual focus can focus on, so making any claims about clarity differences just shows your lack of knowledge of cameras.

Watching you back pedal by talking about the speed that manual focus works is also laughable. Camera focus is all about distance. Once you have manual focus set to a certain distance you don't need to make any changes to the focus, unless the objects are moving. If they are moving closer to you, you just move the depth of field and focus closer.

Manual focus is actually the preferred setting for all real photographers because auto focus has the tendency to change unexpectedly when you move the camera. Using manual focus is better because once you get something in focus, it stays in focus, unless it is moving closer or further away. In that case you just make small adjustments to get it back in focus. Waiting for an auto focus to finish calculating and moving the lenses back and fourth is cumbersome.

Anyway, you proved you don't know what you are talking about so... there is not much more to be said.

Originally posted by SeenMyShare
To everyone else: this is no hoax, it was a sincere request for an explanation. I apologize for the bickering and squabbling this thread has been reduced to.

There is no bicker or squabbling... you are just posting false information and raising questions of our own. If you were truly looking for explanations you wouldn't dismiss everyone and you wouldn't post unrelated videos of an entirely different event. You wouldn't listen instead of ignore.

I may not know how to use every feature of every camera I own, but I never claimed to be an expert in their use. I do claim to have used them thousands of times and to be an expert of what is normal and what is not normal in my area. Please quote my post where I claimed I was an experience expert photographer? I'm an auto mechanic, not a professional photographer. Photography is my hobby, which you can be sure I will never share with the ATS community again!

I, however, would never resort to the depth of discrediting you are attempting. I would not resort to calling people a liar or a hoaxer who've done nothing but answer every question you've asked and been polite about it whereas you are about as rude as they come. Did your parents not teach you any better? Your signature is a joke. I have taken every snide innuendo from you without retaliating in kind because I value my membership on this site.

The photos in the second album were taken from a huge folder of photos and I did not check the exif data on any of them before I uploaded them. If they all happen to be from the Z1012 and the S5 IS that is by sheer coincidence, not be design nor by subterfuge.

Also, please, enlighten us plebians on your expertise with cameras. Have you ever used ANY of the cameras I mentioned?

Final question to you: how do you suggest I take video today of an event from yesterday? You tell me how and I'll for darn sure go try it!


ETA: your post yesterday asking for video was after dark. Your first post to this thread and its timestamp.

reply to post by snusfanatic

jesus, will a mod please delete that long string of duplicates. don't know what happened but its embarassing.

LMAO! I was beginning to wonder if you weren't trying to pull some kind of joke! Ha, ha!

reply to post by SeenMyShare


I see nothing in south central PA...
just clear skys and the crecent moon, oh and a million floaters in my own eyeball gelly...

Originally posted by SeenMyShare
I may not know how to use every feature of every camera I own, but I never claimed to be an expert in their use. I do claim to have used them thousands of times and to be an expert of what is normal and what is not normal in my area. Please quote my post where I claimed I was an experience expert photographer? I'm an auto mechanic, not a professional photographer. Photography is my hobby, which you can be sure I will never share with the ATS community again!

I never said you were an experienced photographer. But when you say stuff like "my cameras don't have manual focus", and "manual focus and manual settings are not the same thing"...... blah blah... you sure sound confident that you know what you are talking about. Now that I proved you wrong.... it's quite hilarious to watch you back pedal.

Originally posted by SeenMyShare
I, however, would never resort to the depth of discrediting you are attempting.

I am not attempting anything.. You are doing this all to yourself. You are making claims that your cameras don't have manual focus, and you were proven to be wrong. You are discrediting your self.

Originally posted by SeenMyShare
I would not resort to calling people a liar or a hoaxer who've done nothing but answer every question you've asked and been polite about it whereas you are about as rude as they come.

The only person I called a liar was that other person because he claimed I tried to call him a liar, and that is a lie.

I have not been rude, I have been persistent and I have been asking very important questions. You haven't answered any of them correctly. How do you expect me to believe you after you incorrectly told me that your cameras do not have manual focus when they do??

How am I being rude? Because I am noticing your inconsistency?

Originally posted by SeenMyShare
Did your parents not teach you any better?

Off topic RANT. I have done nothing wrong. You just hate to be proven wrong and feel I am attacking you because I am showing everyone your errors.

So tell me again your cameras don't have manual focus when they do...

Originally posted by SeenMyShare
Your signature is a joke.

Your topic is a joke.

Originally posted by SeenMyShare
I have taken every snide innuendo from you without retaliating in kind because I value my membership on this site.

All I have done was ask questions and point out your inconsistencies and your flaws. I gave you valid explanations for videos you posted, and even for the pictures you brought forward. I asked you simple questions only to have them replied to with incorrect information..... Who are you trying to fool here?

Originally posted by SeenMyShare
The photos in the second album were taken from a huge folder of photos and I did not check the exif data on any of them before I uploaded them. If they all happen to be from the Z1012 and the S5 IS that is by sheer coincidence, not be design nor by subterfuge.

Ok, well I am just telling you that all your pictures are from the Z1012 and the S5 IS. Nothing more, nothing less.

Originally posted by SeenMyShare
Also, please, enlighten us plebians on your expertise with cameras. Have you ever used ANY of the cameras I mentioned?

If you would have read my posts you would have already noticed that told you that YES I have used a couple of the cameras you mentioned.

Let's just say there is nothing about photography that I don't know.

Originally posted by SeenMyShare
Final question to you: how do you suggest I take video today of an event from yesterday? You tell me how and I'll for darn sure go try it!

I asked to see video the day you posted this topic.

Originally posted by SeenMyShare
ETA: your post yesterday asking for video was after dark. Your first post to this thread and its timestamp.

edit on 11/11/2010 by SeenMyShare because: edit to add link from gift0fpr0phecy's first post to this thread.

Wrong yet again...

This was my first post on this topic. Time stamped at 10-11-2010 @ 04:56 PM.

This is all I said towards you:

OP, all I see in your images are spider webs. If you get video of your other claims then we can move beyond this, but they look exactly like spider webs.

Then you replied with some rant about not being able to focus your camera...

Your first post was 10-11-2010 @ 01:08 PM, and mine was 10-11-2010 @ 04:56 PM., not at 10-11-2010 @ 07:54 PM like you claimed.

I only posted 3 hours and 48 minutes after your first post.... I figured you might still have time to get video.

I like how you are trying to turn this around on me. Nice try.

Sorry if someone has already mentioned this as I only read one page before posting. This sounds like something I heard of that was falling in Texas a few years ago. They said it was filaments like in the disease Morgellons, which has been covered on Jeff Rense, You Tube and other sites.

this.....

give this post a star posted on 10/11/2010 @ 05:56 PM

IS the timestamp from your link as well as mine.

reply to post by SeenMyShare

This is real my friend. I had the same experience in May 2006 after seeing loads of ufo orbs and later a radiant white mothership that buzzed us four times. After it had departed it left a cotton wool/candy floss like substance that descended slowly from the sky. Further research later and it's called Manna in the Bible. I swear to you this experience is so real, we are not crazy. Strangest thing ever but so amzing and real.

BTW I am a bit worried by the fact that this stuff is supposed to be the effect of a mothership leaving our dimension and going to another. The substance is meant to be radioactive, does that mean I am contaminated and maybe you are too?

Originally posted by SeenMyShare
this.....

give this post a star posted on 10/11/2010 @ 05:56 PM

IS the timestamp from your link as well as mine.

Obviously I have my forum time settings set to -6 Central Time, and you don't. Don't you know anything?

This is my first post. I posted it on 10-11-2010 @ 04:56 PM CENTRAL TIME.

This is not my first post like you claimed.

Ok I'm done with you.... have fun filming spider webs, and posting incorrect information, and failing to learn how to use your cameras manual focus.

reply to post by gift0fpr0phecy

LOL, you take the cake. Your superior attitude and your awesome command of the English language don't always make you right.

This IS your first post and YOU are the one who did not understand that the sun sets in MY time zone before yours.



You've succeeded in showing everyone how ignorant I am of my camera's controls. Proud? You've succeeded in showing everyone you are more intelligent than me. Proud? You've succeeded in showing everyone how relentless you are to be superior to everyone. Proud?

signature: "If I have the gift of prophecy and can fathom all mysteries and all knowledge.. and if I have a faith that can move mountains.. but have not love.. I am nothing." - 1 Corinthians 13:2

Proud?

Maybe those "spider web-like" things are actually spider webs? I don't know, just-a-thought.

reply to post by harrytuttle

I can't say with 100% certainty they weren't. I can just tell you that none came low enough for me to inspect and there were no spiders falling from the sky.

Originally posted by SeenMyShare
reply to post by harrytuttle

 

I can't say with 100% certainty they weren't. I can just tell you that none came low enough for me to inspect and there were no spiders falling from the sky.

They are very tiny, and practically invisible except for the reflected sunlight from the web. You don't even have to view them by looking up, on certain days at late evening they can be seen en masse, just as you can see flying insects. What you have here are clever spiders. Australia I think it is have gliding spiders too,( Maratus Volans) it opens flaps to glide.

Click here for more information.

*** ATTENTION ***

The snide and personal comments stop now.

You will be post banned.