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.

 

Clear Daylight Massive UFO Sighting videotaped, photographed and witnessed by thousands!!! - Link he

page: 2
7
<< 1   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 26 2011 @ 03:09 AM
link   
reply to post by JdGlobal
 



Bird?
edit on 26-4-2011 by borutp because: (no reason given)




posted on Apr, 26 2011 @ 03:10 AM
link   

Originally posted by alfa1

Originally posted by A51Watcher
Ummm.... Since when has Venus -ever- looked liked this:

And since when does Venus fly through the daytime sky against the clouds?

Here you go.
Take a few frames of this video and blow them up massively to the same size as the ones you posted (taking into account the poor video quality of 1991 cameras). Its the same.


Oh is that right? Well now, I went to your linked video, and to my surprise... - it looks and appears nothing like the above videos, it just looks like Venus.




I even blew up stills as you suggested:



wow, still nothing like the above videos, just looks like Venus.




Edit - even better example of venus in the daytime that looks like the Mexican thing...
Link


And so this is supposed to be even better?? Again, here is your 2nd linked "better":



"wow" once again, -nothing- like the above videos.



So now let's examine all these "great" "conclusive" explanations:




So what happened to your supposed 'Here you go'??...

and "Take a few frames of this video and blow them up massively to the same size as the ones you posted... Its the same."

Well obviously it's NOT.


Now we move on to watching the actual videos -in action- and the difference is even MORE obvious.

I appreciate your attempt to provide what I asked for, but it has failed rather miserably.


Everybody wants to just post a link to some page and act like it's case closed. As we can see from the above "comparisons", all these allegedly "solid" refutations are a complete joke!

And as for your "wow" flying video, it is -again- nothing like the above videos.

However you have now moved on to the "airplane" supposed explanation.

Since when can airplanes fly into a cloud, throw it into reverse and pop back out of the cloud and then hover for a moment, and then continue on their merry way?



posted on Apr, 26 2011 @ 03:52 AM
link   

Originally posted by A51Watcher
Oh is that right? Well now, I went to your linked video, and to my surprise... - it looks and appears nothing like the above videos, it just looks like Venus.


Well, we're going to disagree on this one because I see blobby highly pixelated white blurry unresolved mess with compression and video artifacts in both of them. In neither case is it possible to make out any distinctive features




Originally posted by A51Watcher
However you have now moved on to the "airplane" supposed explanation.


I did what? You must have me mistaken for somebody else.

P.S. It would be nice if you answered my question that you ignored earlier.
Since many amateur astronomers saw Venus at that time in the sky, and software also shows it was at that location at that time, why is it that NONE of the people who saw a Venus-like UFO in that part of the sky at that time happened to see Venus?
P.P.S. And why is Mars in the correct place for both Venus and the "UFO"?



posted on Apr, 26 2011 @ 04:12 AM
link   

Originally posted by alfa1

Originally posted by A51Watcher
Oh is that right? Well now, I went to your linked video, and to my surprise... - it looks and appears nothing like the above videos, it just looks like Venus.


Well, we're going to disagree on this one because I see blobby highly pixelated white blurry unresolved mess with compression and video artifacts in both of them. In neither case is it possible to make out any distinctive features


Yes I agree to disagree on this one.



Originally posted by A51Watcher
However you have now moved on to the "airplane" supposed explanation.

I did what? You must have me mistaken for somebody else.



look how Venus flies past the tree


"flying", ... airplane? see the connection?



P.S. It would be nice if you answered my question that you ignored earlier.


It would be nice if you would have not ignored the answer already given, previous to your question even being posted.

"how do you manage to all be videotaping Venus, when you are all facing different directions while filming?"



posted on Apr, 26 2011 @ 05:26 AM
link   

Originally posted by A51Watcher
"how do you manage to all be videotaping Venus, when you are all facing different directions while filming?"


Easy peasy.
Because they were NOT facing different directions while filming. You're lying.

Some quotes...
Video 1. 14:11 "object hovering below the vanishing sun"
Video 2. 1:31 "17 different people, in different quadrants of the city, videotaped an object hovering below the great eclipse"
Video 2. 3:33 "the UFO had positioned itself below the eclipsing sun"


It didnt fly either. Just like Venus, it stayed in place.
Video 1. 6:46 "a shimmering, stationary object"
Video 1. 8:11 "and the hovering object still remains in place"
Video 1. 8:37 "this indicates that the UFO.. remained stationary.. for at least 20 minutes."
Video 2. 2:05 "the object... was seen in place for a duration of 30 minutes"
Video 2. 6:13 "it seems to be hovering... its just standing there"
Video 3. 1:05 "same configuration... same attitude. Just hovering there."


So, we have a stationary bright object positioned below the eclipse. Just like Venus.



P.S. Twice now you've avoided answering the question about nobody seeing the actual planet venus that was there at that place in the sky on that day at that time.

edit on 26-4-2011 by alfa1 because: clarity



posted on Apr, 26 2011 @ 07:07 AM
link   

Originally posted by alfa1


So, we have a stationary bright object positioned below the eclipse. Just like Venus.


As shown by actual pictures (not text) in my previous reply(s), it is -not- "Just like Venus".

In fact it is -not even close-.

But you choose to breeze right by that entire page of proof, along with the entire page of points I made (miss those somehow?) and instead now move on to something else and complain about how some final question was not supposedly answered. You think your points are somehow more important than mine? Sorry, skipping to the bottom and trying to move on to points you think you might have better luck with, doesn't work with me.

Seriously, I would have an easier time buying the weather balloon explanation than this "Venus" nonsense.

If you, and anyone else who watches these videos think they are seeing Venus, then good luck to you, I respectfully disagree.

And speaking of respect:


Because they were NOT facing different directions while filming. You're lying.


That and the 7 citations following it have -no- associated direction information, only height.

Oh and the 'external image' link you included leads to no photo, only a animation still.

Also you conveniently continue to ignore the video of it actually moving at one point.

And finally, the "You're lying" bit, calling me a liar is the last resort of someone desperate with no where else left to turn.

How about "They are lying" instead, since I was not the one filming these videos.


And finally, may I ask, (besides ignoring points you don't like) about that tactic of yours of insulting total strangers by calling them a liar, then demanding answers from them... how is that workin out for ya?


In my book, such people "don't deserve the time of day".


edit on 26-4-2011 by A51Watcher because: the usual



posted on Apr, 26 2011 @ 09:49 AM
link   

Originally posted by A51Watcher

Originally posted by alfa1
So, we have a stationary bright object positioned below the eclipse. Just like Venus.


As shown by actual pictures (not text) in my previous reply(s), it is -not- "Just like Venus".


Ah... so we continue on.
Since linking two sentences together is too difficult for you, I'll rephrase it as one sentence.
"Like Venus, the UFO was both stationary and below the eclipse".

You know, since my whole previous posting was about just those two points and no other topic, I would have thought you would have linked that this is what I was talking about. The "stationaryness" aspect of it, and the "below the eclipseness" aspect of it, that is like Venus was on that day at that time at that location in the sky.
Not the visual aspect of it, which I wasnt even talking about in the post you replied to. (see below)




Originally posted by A51Watcher
In fact it is -not even close-.
But you choose to breeze right by that entire page of proof...


Well you see, when I said Well, we're going to disagree on this one...
to which you replied Yes I agree to disagree on this one.
...and then you said absolutely not a single word more about it, I thought that YOU had dropped the topic.
Now two postings later you want to reopen discussion about the visual aspect of it again?

My answer is the same as before. My opinion on that is I see blobby highly pixelated white blurry unresolved mess with compression and video artifacts in both of them. In neither case is it possible to make out any distinctive features

And yes, once again you dodged the question:
Since many amateur astronomers saw Venus at that time in the sky, and software also shows it was at that location at that time, why is it that NONE of the people who saw a Venus-like UFO in that part of the sky at that time happened to see Venus?




Originally posted by A51Watcher
That and the 7 citations following it have -no- associated direction information, only height.


Video 2. 3:33 "the UFO had positioned itself below the eclipsing sun"
The reality is that "below the sun" is indeed directional information. You simply cant face the sun and have a "below" point in any other direction other than the direction of the sun. You even see it in many of the videos, they show the eclipse, then swing the camera down to the 'UFO'. That is the direction. Of the sun. Below it.

I'll also go back and refer to the misleading image that you posted on 26-4-2011 @ 16:00 that you gave no reference to, which shows a bunch of red lines crossing an outline of Mexico City. In fact, it looks remarkably like the image at 1:30 in the second video, but that somebody else has drawn some red lines over, that were not there in the original video.

In other words, whoever drew those red lines is faking in some misrepresentative information, and a making fraudulent claim that not even the 'Messengers of Destiny' people are making. At no time does 'Messengers of Destiny' say they were looking in different directions, and as I pointed out in my previus post, they go out of their way on several occasions to say they were in fact looking in the SAME direction.
Whoever created that image with the superimposed red lines is a liar. Dont believe them. Go to the original video.




Originally posted by A51Watcher
Oh and the 'external image' link you included leads to no photo, only a animation still.


Yes it does. I was showing you the direction of Venus on that day at that time.
Below the sun. Below the eclipse. In that direction.





Originally posted by A51Watcher
Also you conveniently continue to ignore the video of it actually moving at one point.


The documentary makers state on many occasions that it was stationary for half an hour at least. If you've got a particular bit of video in mind that disagrees with them, let me know.
Edit - I hope you're not referring to the guy in the third video who is looking at interlace flicker. Or the momenary burn in on the old video camera tubes that he called a 'plasma' engine.

edit on 26-4-2011 by alfa1 because: content added

edit on 26-4-2011 by alfa1 because: more content



posted on Apr, 26 2011 @ 11:21 AM
link   

Originally posted by A51Watcher
Ummm.... Since when has Venus -ever- looked liked this:





What you see are camera artifacts that result from freezing the frame of a 1980s era consumer level VHS camcorder and blowing it up far beyond any useful magnification. VHS camcorders had moving tape and moving recording heads and usually pretty poor optics (good optics would be wasted by the VHS recording process). The difference between the stills between then and now is because modern video is an entirely digital process. No moving heads and tape to create the MoD artifacts.




posted on Apr, 26 2011 @ 04:35 PM
link   
A61watcher, I wouldn't bother wasting your time with these people. They are either going to try to debuk anything outside their marrow and lomited view of the world, or purposefully deny things. They are not yet ready for such things. Give them time and it sinks into them eventually. By trying to reason with them only entrenches them in their silliness.



posted on Apr, 26 2011 @ 05:05 PM
link   
Im a firm believer that something is going on above us i watch the sky every night and Ive been noticing that it seems to be that "ufo's" are posing as stars but if u know much about astronomy u would realize that what ur seeing is moving in the opposite direction as the actual stars and there appears to be hundreds now yes there r many things they could b but every night and they move so um lets say its remarkable there very precise and fast and within the last few days ive been noticing that air fighter jets seem to just vanish within what appears to around a few hundred feet away from these "ufo's" and last night in particular what we know as heat lighting took place from around 8:00p.m. to about 1-2 a.m. and it actually seemed different like i don't no some of u might get what i'm saying it just didn't seem like heat lighting it really seems that our air fighter jets are secretly fighting these "ufo's" and they cover it up so well that we dont notice it well some because alot of people don't care about the earth or it's surrounding's , they only care about what is affecting there lives emotionally bfiends ,,gfriends ,family ,school ,rich ,poor ,fat ,ugly ,pretty ,etc...... i honestly feel something changing around me i don't no maybe it's just me being so interested n stuff like this and what ive been researching huh.....who knows just for the next few days if there are clear sky's look n c if u c anything pay real close attention my fellow ats friends . please tell me how u feel on this thanks for ur time .



posted on Apr, 26 2011 @ 05:14 PM
link   

Originally posted by alfa1
Well, we're going to disagree on this one because I see blobby highly pixelated white blurry unresolved mess with compression and video artifacts in both of them. In neither case is it possible to make out any distinctive features

What I see is that the distinctive feature is that it doesn't look much like Venus.



posted on Apr, 30 2011 @ 06:47 AM
link   

Originally posted by taoistguy
A61watcher, I wouldn't bother wasting your time with these people. They are either going to try to debuk anything outside their marrow and lomited view of the world, or purposefully deny things. They are not yet ready for such things. Give them time and it sinks into them eventually. By trying to reason with them only entrenches them in their silliness.


hi taoistguy

I understand your feeling on this matter, because obviously we have some rather rude chaps on here who can't keep a civil tongue in their head while trying to make a point. It's too bad they could not have used a modicum of manners and decorum because discussions from both points of view help bring a wider understanding of any subject for all readers of this forum. And while I am a big fan and participant of humor and sarcasm, there is no call for rude comments, in fact such behavior is actively discouraged by ATS.

And so we will just ignore such ill-bred people with no manners who have not learned the art of civilized public debate and make such comments as:

"That's pathetic." - wasco2

and

"You're lying" - alfa1

and instead continue the discussion without them.


Let's examine the allegation that:

"What you see are camera artifacts that result from freezing the frame of a 1980s era consumer level VHS camcorder and blowing it up far beyond any useful magnification."

Ok fine by me, let's examine the evidence with NO zoom factor at all and compare it to Venus.

Even though the zoom idea was suggested by alfa1, he didn't seem too pleased with the results and instead wanted to move on to something else.

So let's begin by comparing images from Mexico with NO zoom, with visible reference points to show there is no zoom involved.

Here is film # 1 by the family, with pictures that have a visible chain of custody that anyone can follow along with for themselves to see that there is no zoom involved.















and we will then use this as example # 1 from Mexico.

Next we have film # 2 by the student, with pictures that also have a visible chain of custody that anyone can follow along with for themselves to see that there is no zoom involved:







and we will then use this picture as example # 2 from Mexico.

Now let's examine the linked video's provided as "proof" this has to be Venus:

link




oh, wait a minute!... The title of this linked video that was provided actually says on the video "(Part 2)" where by now the photographer has already zoomed!

So let's instead - go back and take a look at -Part 1- I found where the video is not zoomed yet:

link - Part 1




Oh my... I'm not seeing any Venus -at all- at this point!

I guess we will have to follow along with the photographer as he zooms in:



Hmm... still nothing yet...



Oh dear... -still- no sign of Venus...



Wait!... I think I see a speck of light!!! Wow! -At last- we finally see Venus! Even though this is magnified by unknown factor of several orders at this point, we at least (sort of) have something to use for comparison, even though this was intended to be a comparison with NO zoom involved. We will use this pic as example Exhibit A.

link 2




Which sadly has no visible chain of custody, but does appear to be already zoomed, since we can now see Venus at this point.

We will use this as example Exhibit B.

So now lets compare our 2 objects of known size with those 2 of questionable original size:



Oh dear... this is not looking good for Venus so far. Comparisons of NO zoom pictures seem show to quite a considerable size difference now don't they.

Let's give each a 2x zoom and see what observations can be made:



and now 4x:



and 8x:



Oh dear, Venus seems to have flown into near earth orbit for the day!

And finally we add in the other two films taken from Mexico for comparison:





And here is a photo from the camera that couldn't see Venus in the NO zoom mode, but in it's full zoom mode is now reporting zoom at 800x, and here is the result:



Think what the Mexico photos would look like at 800x !!

(Also note their elliptical shape is vertical instead of horizontal like all the Mexico films.)


So with the Mexico photos we must be looking at a much closer object.

Now as to the angle of filming:



If everyone filming were pointing millions of miles away, they of course would all be facing in the same direction.

However if our object was much closer, and say a few thousand feet up, everyone would be filming from different angles:



And this is what was reported by all the photographers who were interviewed, and showed where they took the film and from what angle. The producers then made this graphic to show the locations of filming... AND the location of the object, shown moving from east to west:







So unless all the photographers and the producers were 'lying'... we have a slowly moving object filmed from different angles. It's reported close proximity is confirmed by our previous size comparison data.


Is there any evidence to support this? Let's examine lighting and shadow.

Note the lighting and shadow of the adjustment knob on the telescope, and compare it to the same on the Mexico Pictures:



Also note the shadow is at different angles on the objects, how can that be?

Also I don't recall any of the Venus pictures having light and shadow, instead they are of a SOURCE of light.


So now we have demonstrated a vast size differential, indicative of a nearby object, as testified to by witnesses, and also a filming direction differential, also testified to, and also a 3-D lighting and shadow differential, which Venus does not have.

Obviously, Venus is NOT the culprit here.

As always, I welcome civilized questions and comments.


Cheers!



posted on Apr, 30 2011 @ 07:05 AM
link   
And here is one of my favorite video's from the early 90's folder, again taken in Mexico, the year after the eclipse sightings:




posted on Nov, 25 2012 @ 12:26 AM
link   
Keep it up F and star all your post Ya ATS at it best
Now going over to

The Day Before Roswell
www.abovetopsecret.com...



new topics

top topics



 
7
<< 1   >>

log in

join