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.

 

My Mum Talks To Aliens - Full Documentary

page: 4
24
<< 1  2  3    5  6 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 2 2010 @ 02:25 PM
link   
Hi, all.

Anyone else gets this?:

This video is no longer available due to a copyright claim by Joined Up Films Pty Ltd

Blue skies.




posted on Dec, 2 2010 @ 02:34 PM
link   
reply to post by C-JEAN
 

The Disclose.TV Link is still working. They have the full document so you won't have to watch in in Parts.

ETA: New YouTube Links. Can't guarantee how long they will stay up.








edit on 2-12-2010 by SunshineLaws because: - explained in post



posted on Dec, 2 2010 @ 05:49 PM
link   
The shape of the objects can be explained by the camera's lens. This picture was taken by me. The 2 objects are actually cars in the distance. But they dont even resemble cars. When an object is so out of focus it will actually look like the inside of the camera's lens.



Some people mod their lens like this



To achieve this effect for out of focus objects




I have not watched the whole documentary. Does it mention this effect in digital cameras? If not then it might be left out deliberately...
edit on 2-12-2010 by vinunleaded because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 2 2010 @ 05:49 PM
link   
reply to post by Human_Alien
 




Perhaps if evidence was presented to people on an individual basis (without knowing what others thought) maybe the truth would've been known by now.


Yep. The one thing they got right in the movie Men in Black is the quote: "A person is smart. People are dumb, panicky dangerous animals and you know it..."

So true.



posted on Dec, 2 2010 @ 06:03 PM
link   
Thats because old people and hill billies (of all ages) are not aware of the existence of Adobe Photoshop. I can cook up a copy of Obama's Mexican birth certificate and they will eat that stuff up





Originally posted by Chrysalis

Originally posted by Human_Alien
reply to post by downunderET
 


It appears the older generation (50 yrs +) are the experiencers and the youngin's are the doubters. One would think it'd be the other way 'round.

Interesting.

I don't think the justin bieber fans I just saw on TV will provide anything of value to the debate.



posted on Dec, 2 2010 @ 08:08 PM
link   
reply to post by vinunleaded
 

Nothing in this post has anything to do with this documentary. If this was an attempt to point out flaws in the one bit of footage presented in this documentary, then it fails. The footage was taken with a "handy-cam" and nothing you presented in those external links, appear to be anything like that bit of footage presented.

If anyone is going to "debunk," then debunk with facts and evidence relative to the OP. There is a movement starting of experiencers that are tired of being the brunt of jokes and dismissed out of hand without the same burden of evidence being applied to the debunker.

Watch the documentary and witness for yourself how Mary Rodwell was made fun of and ridiculed by this so-called "Man of Science." Ask yourself why he gets a pass for his lack of civility, decorum and down-right rudeness toward her without any repercussions for his behavior from the audience in attendance of that charade?

I hope everyone realizes that there are as many charlatan debunkers, as there are charlatan experiencers and witnesses. They both are equally guilty of bilking the community for every dime they can get. It's just seems that the debunker/naysayers are never investigated to the strict standards the other half is held to. [/rant]

ETA: Here are the images that were presented by the post I replied to and the reason for my rant:

QUOTE: The shape of the objects can be explained by the camera's lens. This picture was taken by me. The 2 objects are actually cars in the distance. But they dont even resemble cars. When an object is so out of focus it will actually look like the inside of the camera's lens.




QUOTE: Some people mod their lens like this




QUOTE: To achieve this effect for out of focus objects




What in the heck do still shot effects have to do with a two minute, eleven second shot of an hour long documentary. Also, what in the heck does a still shot camera, have to do with a small portion of a video that Mary Rodwell received and added to the documentary? Are you saying Mary was fooled? ::Cheeses of Nazareth::





edit on 2-12-2010 by SunshineLaws because: - explained in post



posted on Dec, 2 2010 @ 08:29 PM
link   
reply to post by vinunleaded
 


No it doesn't mention this effect, as I recall. My question is though giving the images you shown and the number of hearts that showed up out of focus. Using this technique, does it always create a substantial quantity of these out of focus shapes resembling the filter used (Does it depend on size of the filters shape?)? I understand the effect your speaking about. I think we also need to gain some insight as to what is in the background, from the view the camera had. Obviously it being early morning and with the weather the way it was. We can't discern yet if say, there may be a mountain side in the distance for example with a road way of some sort. Which could possibly give a resembled effect.

Does anyone have any knowledge of the surrounding area where this sighting took place. I'll be looking into myself.



posted on Dec, 2 2010 @ 08:36 PM
link   
Wow thats quite an essay. I never meant to debunk anything or get a rise out of anyone. I apologize if I came out that way. I did not mean to debunk anything. I was just giving my 2 cents as I see a lot of videos showing out of focus objects resembling the camera lens's aperture that I personally see all the time in my work.




Originally posted by SunshineLaws
reply to post by vinunleaded
 

Nothing in this post has anything to do with this documentary. If this was an attempt to point out flaws in the one bit of footage presented in this documentary, then it fails. The footage was taken with a "handy-cam" and nothing you presented in those external links, appear to be anything like that bit of footage presented.

If anyone is going to "debunk," then debunk with facts and evidence relative to the OP. There is a movement starting of experiencers that are tired of being the brunt of jokes and dismissed out of hand without the same burden of evidence being applied to the debunker.

Watch the documentary and witness for yourself how Mary Rodwell was made fun of and ridiculed by this so-called "Man of Science." Ask yourself why he gets a pass for his lack of civility, decorum and down-right rudeness toward her without any repercussions for his behavior from the audience in attendance of that charade?

I hope everyone realizes that there are as many charlatan debunkers, as there are charlatan experiencers and witnesses. They both are equally guilty of bilking the community for every dime they can get. It's just seems that the debunker/naysayers are never investigated to the strict standards the other half is held to. [/rant]

ETA: Here are the images that were presented by the post I replied to and the reason for my rant:

QUOTE: The shape of the objects can be explained by the camera's lens. This picture was taken by me. The 2 objects are actually cars in the distance. But they dont even resemble cars. When an object is so out of focus it will actually look like the inside of the camera's lens.




QUOTE: Some people mod their lens like this




QUOTE: To achieve this effect for out of focus objects




What in the heck do still shot effects have to do with a two minute, eleven second shot of an hour long documentary. Also, what in the heck does a still shot camera, have to do with a small portion of a video that Mary Rodwell received and added to the documentary? Are you saying Mary was fooled? ::Cheeses of Nazareth::





edit on 2-12-2010 by SunshineLaws because: - explained in post



posted on Dec, 2 2010 @ 08:39 PM
link   
Huh? Calm down there buddy. I gave my 2 cents to try to explain the objects in the 2 minutes video. I did not say anything that hints on debunking the whole movie. I even mentioned I did NOT see the whole documentary.
Now please take a chill pill and discuss this with your personal feelings aside.



posted on Dec, 2 2010 @ 08:59 PM
link   

Originally posted by vinunleaded
Wow thats quite an essay. I never meant to debunk anything or get a rise out of anyone. I apologize if I came out that way. I did not mean to debunk anything. I was just giving my 2 cents as I see a lot of videos showing out of focus objects resembling the camera lens's aperture that I personally see all the time in my work.


Why did you comment then?

I have never seen an "aperture" control on any camcorder I have ever owned. I am an amateur photographer. My favorite camera was a Pentax SLR that I could control everything about the exposure. I have never seen any camcorder or even a super 8 in the past that would allow anyone to do that. Be that as it may, what was your intention in posting what you did? It's apropos of nothing to the topic at hand. I guess you have figured out by now that I bite.

ETA:


Originally posted by vinunleaded
Huh? Calm down there buddy. I gave my 2 cents to try to explain the objects in the 2 minutes video. I did not say anything that hints on debunking the whole movie. I even mentioned I did NOT see the whole documentary.
Now please take a chill pill and discuss this with your personal feelings aside.



edit on 2-12-2010 by SunshineLaws because: I wan to add a quote before it's erased.



posted on Dec, 2 2010 @ 09:07 PM
link   
Not being able to adjust the aperture has nothing to do with getting that effect. Most digital cameras adjust the aperture and other settings such as ISO as the white and black levels in the scene change. But yes I have cameras that can do both photos and videos that let you adjust all those settings manually.


My intention was to contribute to the topic, thank you very much. I contributed my 2 cents because theres a possibility the film maker filmed those objects that way (out of focus) to intentionally make them appear like diamond shaped objects when they might not look like that in real life.

PS. Try not to bite



Originally posted by SunshineLaws

Originally posted by vinunleaded
Wow thats quite an essay. I never meant to debunk anything or get a rise out of anyone. I apologize if I came out that way. I did not mean to debunk anything. I was just giving my 2 cents as I see a lot of videos showing out of focus objects resembling the camera lens's aperture that I personally see all the time in my work.


Why did you comment then?

I have never seen an "aperture" control on any camcorder I have ever owned. I am an amateur photographer. My favorite camera was a Pentax SLR that I could control everything about the exposure. I have never seen any camcorder or even a super 8 in the past that would allow anyone to do that. Be that as it may, what was your intention in posting what you did? It's apropos of nothing to the topic at hand. I guess you have figured out by now that I bite.





posted on Dec, 2 2010 @ 09:17 PM
link   

Originally posted by vinunleaded
Not being able to adjust the aperture has nothing to do with getting that effect. Most digital cameras adjust the aperture and other settings such as ISO as the white and black levels in the scene change. But yes I have cameras that can do both photos and videos that let you adjust all those settings manually.


My intention was to contribute to the topic, thank you very much. I contributed my 2 cents because theres a possibility the film maker filmed those objects that way (out of focus) to intentionally make them appear like diamond shaped objects when they might not look like that in real life.

PS. Try not to bite


That's not what you said. There are other forums at ATS in which you can discuss camera techniques.

Let me ask you this. Did you learn how I posted your photos while you were quoting my posts? Or were you too busy changing your mind about how you wanted to respond to my posts?

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ -------

To the Australian members of ATS. Do any one of you have links or info about Mary? I would really like to learn more about her. Thank you in advance for your answers.



posted on Dec, 2 2010 @ 09:18 PM
link   
Well i've looked into the surrounding area of where that footage was shot. I can't say I can see anything, that would currently have allowed for what was recorded. To have been possible through something under human influence/control (e.g. lights, car lights, etc). So im more entitled to now feel that the footage does stand alone for what it is for now. Im looking into other aspects e.g. Any Aircraft in the air in that general direction that may have been Air Force.

Also anyone come across any reports of a crop circle of sorts in the general vicinity of the sighting? Only reason I ask is obviously whoever shot the film, insisted there'd be one there after the sighting? Might be worthwhile to look into any further information on this sighting.



posted on Dec, 2 2010 @ 09:22 PM
link   
reply to post by SunshineLaws
 


informationfarm.blogspot.com...

members.iinet.net.au...

There's a couple links to get you started. I hadn't previously heard of her until viewing this thread. Also I have this feeling i've met Peter before. Strange. Though I may have crossed paths with him before.

edit on 2-12-2010 by Amdusias because: fix links



posted on Dec, 2 2010 @ 09:24 PM
link   
Huh? I talked about camera because its appropriate for this post. I guess you think people should not be posting mathematic or astronomy comments here also?

As for the question below, Im not sure what you meant.



Originally posted by SunshineLaws


Let me ask you this. Did you learn how I posted your photos while you were quoting my posts? Or were you too busy changing your mind about how you wanted to respond to my posts?



posted on Dec, 2 2010 @ 09:37 PM
link   
reply to post by Amdusias
 


Thanks! I can't wait to read more about her. Also, on the first couple of pages of this this thread, there is google picture of Avesbury/Glastonbury that contains a crop circle. I have no idea whether it fits the time frame, but I laughed out loud all the same.


ETA:


Originally posted by vinunleaded
Huh? I talked about camera because its appropriate for this post. I guess you think people should not be posting mathematic or astronomy comments here also?


This thread is about a documentary, it is not about a camera. You would know that if you had watched the links I posted in the OP, and then again on page 4. You are off-topic for this thread.

edit on 2-12-2010 by SunshineLaws because: I didn't see the post I answered in the ETA note



posted on Dec, 2 2010 @ 10:10 PM
link   
What is your problem buddy. It appears you dont like opposing views. This thread is about a documentary about UFOs. My post discussed about a video contained in the OP.





Originally posted by SunshineLaws
reply to post by Amdusias
 


Thanks! I can't wait to read more about her. Also, on the first couple of pages of this this thread, there is google picture of Avesbury/Glastonbury that contains a crop circle. I have no idea whether it fits the time frame, but I laughed out loud all the same.


ETA:


Originally posted by vinunleaded
Huh? I talked about camera because its appropriate for this post. I guess you think people should not be posting mathematic or astronomy comments here also?


This thread is about a documentary, it is not about a camera. You would know that if you had watched the links I posted in the OP, and then again on page 4. You are off-topic for this thread.

edit on 2-12-2010 by SunshineLaws because: I didn't see the post I answered in the ETA note



posted on Dec, 2 2010 @ 10:11 PM
link   
reply to post by SunshineLaws
 


I see, i've been trying to find anything linking a crop circle but nothing thus far. Im thinking of emailing Mrs Rodwell myself. I have some questions for her on another subject relating to ET's. Im surprised I hadn't heard of her til now. UFO's aren't mentioned too often in Australia. Though I know a number of people who've had encounters and seen what they believe to be UFO's.



posted on Dec, 2 2010 @ 10:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by SunshineLaws

This thread is about a documentary, it is not about a camera. You would know that if you had watched the links I posted in the OP, and then again on page 4. You are off-topic for this thread.


I'd like to step in here and share something with the group.

The original post features a series of YouTube videos from a documentary. The documentary is about a Mother that 'believes' and a Son that 'doesn't'. The plan was for 'Mary' to produce evidence to hopefully convince her Son that she wasn't 'bonkers' in her quests. Her goal was to 'show and/or provide data to support her side of the story. So anything that was posted or mentioned in this documentary would be fair game to be discussed, this includes what she presented to be evidence of UFO's that was sent to her (which she presents to her Son for viewing).

And with regards to that video evidence...

As being someone that has been around cameras all his life, I've come to learn quite a bit about videography and photography. It led me to career in Television broadcasting. And I currently use those same skill-sets in my investigations both for myself and for ATS (as an investigator/researcher). With that said...

Regardless of whether your using a camera or camcorder, 90% of the populace uses simply the 'auto' functions on them. They dont want to be tied down with figuring out 'f-stops', shutter speeds, white balance, etc. They want to grab a camera, turn it on and let the camera figure out what is the 'best shot'. Typically during the daytime, this doesn't pose too much of a problem unless your shooting a lone plane in the sky at quite a distance, then the camera will attempt to focus back and forth trying to get the right shot. Now lets switch to a nighttime shot. The camera has limited abilities in focusing at night. With this in mind lets take a look at two frame-grabs off the documentary the Original poster provided us with.



In the onset of the video of the lights, we see a much sharper and 'near focused' shot of one of these 'lights'. As the video progresses, we see more lights appear, but the focal range is not on the objects, but the foreground. This gives us the 'illusion' of "Diamond Shaped UFOs", because they are themselves out-of-focus. We also have evidence that the focal range is different as the leaves and branches are much sharper and not as see-thru. So we can definitely say without hesitation that we are looking at two separate focal ranges in the video footage.

It is my belief that the witnesses that shot this footage probably were not attempting to hoax this event. But I also believe that they were relying on the camera (in auto-focus mode) to make the necessary 'choices'. And as it would be normal for anyone seeing something odd, they were concentrating on the event itself more so than whether or not they were getting great footage. I myself have been in several similar situations with 4 or 5 cameras and camcorders less than 2 feet away and I was simply to mesmerized at what I was seeing to grab one of them to capture the event (and I think of myself as a semi-professional...).

No one is disputing that in this footage that there are 'not' lights in the early morning sky. In fact I find it rather interesting, especially the lights that seem to appear out of no where. But in order to make a case for or against this, we must first rule out what it isn't. We would need to know if there was possibly an airport nearby, could there possibly have been some military maneuver in effect, perhaps with even flares being dropped. Could there been some other type of event happening in that area? Since we are only seeing a small portion of this 'video evidence' (as is being presented by Mary to her Son), I'd personally would like to see the entire footage. As it sits now with the editing that they (the producers) provide us with, I only see 'appearing lights' that seem to slowly descend. Perhaps if having access to the raw footage we were able to see lateral movement and the lights ascending, we might be able to rule out much more. And isn't that what were all shooting for? Such overwhelming evidence that it defies all other explanations?

In regards to the documentary itself based solely on production and entertainment factor? Well, I found it to be mildly entertaining and the emotions shared by Mother and Son certainly tugs at ones heart-strings. I think everyone can relate to one side or the other with regards to their belief system. I thought that part where the Son got incensed over the man that was challenging his Mother (although he himself was still a skeptic) was especially endearing. I also found the last chronicles of the man with supposed DNA proof 'interesting', especially since there was the claim of having a hair sample. Did I find anything overwhelming in the documentary? Probably not, but all in all, I'm not disappointed that I watched it, in fact it made me curious as to what road the Son would now walk..

Well then there you have it.. I'm tossing in my 2 cents based only on my knowledge of equipment and the majority of the people that use cameras. It's not much, but it's all that I can 'honestly' bring to the table at this time with what has been submitted. Carry on the discussion and debate (but do so in a civil manner please).


Johnny Anonymous
ATS Investigator

edit on 12/3/2010 by JohnnyAnonymous because: Typos and a small addition to how I felt about the documentary itself



posted on Dec, 2 2010 @ 11:58 PM
link   

Originally posted by JohnnyAnonymous
This gives us the 'illusion' of "Diamond Shaped UFOs", because they are themselves out-of-focus.
Thanks Johnny for confirming that, I mentioned it in passing on page 3 of this thread because I was shocked the son called the video "clear" when it's so out of focus when those diamond shapes appear. From a thread about this effect:
www.abovetopsecret.com...

Originally posted by 1nL1ghtened
It's common.

There's another thread where an ATS member disassembles his camera to show us what the aperture looks like at different openings, the diamond shape is clearly visible but the shape also changes as the size of the aperture changes, but I can't find that thread.

I think it's a significant part of the documentary from the son's perspective because he mentioned to his mom that she should have led her debate with that evidence since it impressed him so much, and the professor was asking for evidence. So it's a key part of the documentary to me.

But yes I'd also like to see the full footage. I'm seeing more and more instances of radio controlled planes with lights on them, that may be relatively quiet, so that's one more possible explanation we have to include in the list of possibilities, lately, in addition to the other things you mentioned.



new topics

top topics



 
24
<< 1  2  3    5  6 >>

log in

join