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.

 

What the...What was That? UFO spotted in LIVE NBC News SkyCam at Fort Worth, TX

page: 19
115
<< 16  17  18    20  21  22 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 28 2011 @ 11:16 AM
link   
reply to post by Fullblast
 


I read your statement.....Furthermore, i quoted it, just in case you changed your stance, which you have....

you said there is "No light source NEAR the camera", and you're wrong....or lying...

I'm sure you didn't (at the time) realize the implications of your 'expert' view before writing that paragraph, but as you can see, these people jump all over anything that fits their ideas....

Next time, maybe you'll put a little more thought into your opinions before posting them as indisputable fact...The sheeple get worked up awful quick...

Now that you've retracted your statement, expect for your 'expert' opinion to be ignored, as it dosn't fit with the fantasies of most members...

We knew it was a bug before you stated it wasn't....We knew it was a bug before your buddy said it was...And we still know its a bug now that you've joined the rational side of this argument...




posted on Jul, 28 2011 @ 11:21 AM
link   
reply to post by Fullblast
 


Thanks that would be great, looking at it in HD...do you see clouds?



posted on Jul, 28 2011 @ 11:22 AM
link   

Originally posted by Stykes
reply to post by OneEleven
 


Exactly what does this prove? that images.google.com has nice pictures of the roof?

Only real way to settle this is you have a picture of that camera with a spotlight behind it, or you watch the camera stream tonight until a bug flys buy and you record and analyze. Its how normal forensic experts do things, they create the same scenario again and compare. They don't go to images.google.com and claim they won the debate.


The debate was as follows:

The expert claims that there is no light source near the ROOFTOP camera on the Omni Hotel.

The pictures state otherwise.

Cut and dry really.....Where are you getting confused?....There really is no debate...


Originally posted by Stykes
reply to post by OneEleven
 


Also, how common is it for a bug to fly all the way to the top of a sky scraper? Can bugs fly that high? What bugs would those be that can?


While i could provide you with these answers, i refuse to give you a Life Science lesson just because you're too lazy to research these things on your own....

Good luck...
edit on 28-7-2011 by OneEleven because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 28 2011 @ 11:23 AM
link   
reply to post by OneEleven
 


So by your statement, sounds as it is fact, I should be able to go back to the 19 pages of threads on this and find conclusive evidence this is in fact a bug? You must have posted a comparison video that shows the same sort of features displayed by this video and then astounded us with a analysis of why it is a bug?

I don't understand why people associate UFO synonymously with flying saucer. I think that is a very big mistake, i believe it still remains a UFO, UNIDENTIFIED FLYING OBJECT.

Is neither a bug nor a saucer, its a UFO until proven otherwise.



posted on Jul, 28 2011 @ 11:25 AM
link   
reply to post by OneEleven
 


I just reviewed your post history here on ATS, how interesting that
you want this thread closed.

Now I can see why. Thats whats great about ATS, its all there in plain sight.


Have you seen this bug?

You Tube



posted on Jul, 28 2011 @ 11:25 AM
link   

Originally posted by Stykesjust seems weird more skeptics with absolutely no facts decidedly agreeing everything is fake.


Its as weird as believers with absolutely no facts decidedly agreeing everything is real.

Could it be a UFO? Sure. It could also be a bug, a piece of pollen, a miniatures 747 being piloted by an ant -but I have no reason to believe any of it.

What is it most likely? Seems from the tiny bit of video we have; a speck moved past a camera lens -that its more than like a bug. Sure, it could be a UFO but what else indicates to you that it is? Anything other than it moves erratically and is filmed against a sky? Because ufo and bug close to lens would both fit that criteria. What else have you got? Eye witnesses? Radio transmissions? Radar reports? Anything?



posted on Jul, 28 2011 @ 11:28 AM
link   

Originally posted by Stykes
reply to post by OneEleven
 


So by your statement, sounds as it is fact, I should be able to go back to the 19 pages of threads on this and find conclusive evidence this is in fact a bug? You must have posted a comparison video that shows the same sort of features displayed by this video and then astounded us with a analysis of why it is a bug?

I don't understand why people associate UFO synonymously with flying saucer. I think that is a very big mistake, i believe it still remains a UFO, UNIDENTIFIED FLYING OBJECT.

Is neither a bug nor a saucer, its a UFO until proven otherwise.



Yes...There is a video in this thread showing a bug in this same manner....

There are MILLIONS of these bug videos online....The problem is, they'll be labeled "UFO on camera", or even "Skyfish captured on Sky Cam" or "Ghost caught on video".....

Once again....If you want to see these comparisons, go find them...I'm not doing the footwork just so you can tell me that the latest video of a bug is indeed "Return of Annunaki"....



posted on Jul, 28 2011 @ 11:30 AM
link   
reply to post by sgreco
 


Who is a "Believer"? You should read my last post carefully.

I'm merely being a critical thinker, you can't prove its a bug and the believers can't prove its a Saucer.

So its a UFO.



posted on Jul, 28 2011 @ 11:31 AM
link   
reply to post by burntheships
 


hey....Thanks for stalking me....

In case you havn't noticed, i've been ignoring your posts for the last 13 pages or so.....I've deemed you an unworthy opponent and a delusional, closed minded child...You've got a lot to learn, and i won't be the one to teach you....

you're on your own little fella.....



posted on Jul, 28 2011 @ 11:33 AM
link   
reply to post by OneEleven
 


The video with one hundred bugs flying around?

Oh yea, conclusive irrefutable proof. Honestly.


You seem to be working extra hard to debunk this one?

Why does it matter so much, just let it be a UFO
and we can both be happy.



posted on Jul, 28 2011 @ 11:36 AM
link   

Originally posted by OneEleven
reply to post by Fullblast
 


I read your statement.....Furthermore, i quoted it, just in case you changed your stance, which you have....

you said there is "No light source NEAR the camera", and you're wrong....or lying...

I'm sure you didn't (at the time) realize the implications of your 'expert' view before writing that paragraph, but as you can see, these people jump all over anything that fits their ideas....

Next time, maybe you'll put a little more thought into your opinions before posting them as indisputable fact...The sheeple get worked up awful quick...

Now that you've retracted your statement, expect for your 'expert' opinion to be ignored, as it dosn't fit with the fantasies of most members...

We knew it was a bug before you stated it wasn't....We knew it was a bug before your buddy said it was...And we still know its a bug now that you've joined the rational side of this argument...


I never claimed to be an expert. I do have the very unique situation of being the only person on this thread that can move that camera at this instant. That has seen it night after night after night. I clarified that it was not pointing at Carswell and the location of the camera. I have added to the thread what I consider relevant information.

My issue on the light was that the camera is not lit, like you would see on a live shot. In fact it needs to be in relative darkness for a good picture at night. That said, there are lights on the building and you cannot rule out that one of them caught something just right.

Now as for adding more to the thread. I have talked to the web people at NBCDFW to see if they would be interested in posting some of the HD pics we have on the K2, and they may be. However the K2 is not just a piece of equipment that I can dump a file out of to a flash drive, so IT has to be involved. I will update if they are going to get the HD frames up on the website.


edit on 28-7-2011 by Fullblast because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 28 2011 @ 11:37 AM
link   

Originally posted by Stykes
reply to post by OneEleven
 


The video with one hundred bugs flying around?

Oh yea, conclusive irrefutable proof. Honestly.


You seem to be working extra hard to debunk this one?

Why does it matter so much, just let it be a UFO
and we can both be happy.




The only work i've done is a google search for OMNI hotel Fort Worth Rooftop. It wasn't work at all really.

Honestly, there is no work to be done here....Someone will be willing to run around youtube and bring you more videos of more bugs, but it won't be me....I've seen this same sort of thing a million times....The work has been done over and over again....

There are UFO videos out there......This isn't one of them....



posted on Jul, 28 2011 @ 11:40 AM
link   
reply to post by OneEleven
 


Ahhhhhhhh, Personal attacks, The last resort of a sore loser.

Take care.



posted on Jul, 28 2011 @ 11:41 AM
link   
What if it wasn't an aircraft?

What if it was an intelligent light source?

And how do we know it's impossible for a spaceship?We don't have spaceships that fly at light speed so how would we know?



posted on Jul, 28 2011 @ 11:59 AM
link   
Hey, newby here.

I combed through most of the discussion, watched the video in regular format and in big screen. After viewing the video a couple times I had a question. Now someone said that there was a light source behind the camera that illuminated this "bug". The place where the bug gets faint is lower than the place where the bug brightens again. Is the light from behind the camera diagonal? Or is there something blocking the light behind the camera making it appear a bit slanted?

I am neither a professional camera person nor a ufo expert, but I was just curious.



posted on Jul, 28 2011 @ 12:12 PM
link   
Hmm looks really like UFO. It's not a bug of any kind, because this camera don't have any lights. If lights would be close to camera, they would have to be directed upward. It's not a good idea as camera would have a slight glare on lens. But it's only speculation, it could still be an ordinary bug.



posted on Jul, 28 2011 @ 12:13 PM
link   
reply to post by dilly1
 


At what point do eyewitnesses start to count. You say a large population all agreeing on what they saw but you also say that all eyewitness accounts are bogus so the question is what number of eyewitnesses all saying the same thing then turns this into a possibility to you? More than 10, more than 100, several hundred?



posted on Jul, 28 2011 @ 12:18 PM
link   
looks like a random meteor to me ...did i miss something special?



posted on Jul, 28 2011 @ 12:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by angrydog
looks like a random meteor to me ...did i miss something special?


wow you must have seen a really good meteor shower if you're sure this is what a meteor do, please tell me more...



posted on Jul, 28 2011 @ 12:31 PM
link   
reply to post by dilly1
 


At what point do eyewitnesses start to count. You say a large population all agreeing on what they saw but you also say that all eyewitness accounts are bogus so the question is what number of eyewitnesses all saying the same thing then turns this into a possibility to you? More than 10, more than 100, several hundred?

What you say about videos and pics is true, they can be altered but in your estimation every one of them is a fake and everyone who says they have seen these things are liars. You could try to develop some trust. Not everyone is lying and not every video or pic is faked.
Some are just too hard to tell.

I think this is one of them. The poster who says he is from NBC says there is no light source near this camera. If it is a rooftop camera there probably are lights on the roof of the building .Doors and other items that might require maintenance during the night would need to be lit. Where those lights might be in relation to this camera is the question. A night cam to view the city would be placed in such a way as to avoid too much light pollution and I would think these guys would know the correct place to put such a camera. Our city has traffic cams all over the place. You get good views both night and day except when rain is blown onto the lens. The whole point of having these cameras is to get information, why would they place them so that they are affected by nearby light sources that might distort what they want to see? I think the camera would have been placed in the perfect place for nighttime viewing by experts who know what they are doing. Just my opinion
edit on 28-7-2011 by karen61057 because: (no reason given)



new topics

top topics



 
115
<< 16  17  18    20  21  22 >>

log in

join