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.

 

UFO Seen By Airplane Passenger - Aug. 2011 (+identical object from 2008!)

page: 3
23
<< 1  2    4  5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 8 2011 @ 01:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by disownedsky
reply to post by Zcustosmorum
 


Why can't this be a meteor? It's almost how I would expect one to look............


A big problem with this subject is the large amount of people that "expect" something to look or behave in a certain way. Often, what someone expects is based on their intelligence, science understanding, Hollywood brainwashing....etc. So when they see something that looks like what they "expect" it is often nothing even close to the real thing.




posted on Aug, 8 2011 @ 01:17 PM
link   

Originally posted by MainLineThis
Without seeing the original video after it goes through the youtube crap, it can't really be discussed intelligently.

And since everyone knows I am the least intelligent person around here, I wont let that stop me from giving my opinion (as it seems the same for many of you as well, lol). This video is crap.

My first question, is how was it filmed? Not what kind of camera (don't care) but how was it filmed? If you don't understand why I say that.......then you have never filmed out an aircraft window before, lol.

Second, it it is not a reflection, my best guess is that it is some moron trying his hand at animating a basic thing on his computer. Although it would take someone like me a few minutes to do this, someone just wanted to screw around (or screw with the believer crowd as usual) could spend an hour working on something like this.

But, the believers like stuff like this, because it is "undebunkable". Undebunkable because of the quality of the evidence. So they tend to think that gives them a point on their side.....as if there even needs to be sides, there is either common sense and good evidence of complete ignorance. I know which side I am on....

I fly more than your average poster around here, that much I can assure you. I have seen numerous things out the window that can look like this (all reflections) from the idiot next to me opening his laptop, to the fat lady's powder mirror reflecting as she tries to make herself not look like a total pig...to the drink cart passing by. So there is also a good chance it could be a reflection.

Either way, nothing to see here and nothing to discuss, as usual the quality of the evidence seems to play directly into the hands of those that already believe....almost like religion.


Absolute twaddle from a grumpy, suspicious man who has lost all faith in the human race and correction buddy, there ain't no big man in sky, merely unknown and known objects.

edit on 8-8-2011 by Zcustosmorum because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 8 2011 @ 01:23 PM
link   
reply to post by Zcustosmorum
 


So your letting me that you fly a lot and have significant experience in video editing and cgi related things? Don't be upset because I don't believe everything that baffles your inexperienced and ignorant mind. I have been around longer than you. And yes, when I was younger I used to fall for stupid things as well. I then educated myself in the tools of the trade so I wouldn't fall for moronic things. You will eventually do the same. We all start out with too open of a mind to do any good around here.......



posted on Aug, 8 2011 @ 01:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by MainLineThis
reply to post by Zcustosmorum
 


So your letting me that you fly a lot and have significant experience in video editing and cgi related things? Don't be upset because I don't believe everything that baffles your inexperienced and ignorant mind. I have been around longer than you. And yes, when I was younger I used to fall for stupid things as well. I then educated myself in the tools of the trade so I wouldn't fall for moronic things. You will eventually do the same. We all start out with too open of a mind to do any good around here.......


I reiterate my previous reply and yeah, I've flown to a few places. Also, it would take a good cgi video for me to think it is real although I ain't an expert by any means. Care to elaborate on your self education?



posted on Aug, 8 2011 @ 02:10 PM
link   
reply to post by Zcustosmorum
 


Have to agree on the twaddle bit! so I won't move along just yet, (I love these move along prats PITA's)

Any way I don't think it's a reflection, at least in the last example as it goes behind the 'planes winglet, or wingfence whatever. The main part of the video I'm not sure about, whatever it is could be just below the top of the cloudbank, and what you see may be the effect of something going through the clouds.
Whatever it is, it is extremely fast + the cruising speed of the airliner.



posted on Aug, 8 2011 @ 03:23 PM
link   
reply to post by worlds_away
 


Well, for me to accept that is just light, in my mind that simply equates to a reflection. A light has to have a source emitting it to be seen by the human eye. To accept that it is an object of pure light not due to refection is at this point simply fantasy and not provable. To this date there is nothing real to base that conclusion on, just speculation and wishful thinking with a dash of science fiction mixed in for flavor. I agree with others tho, that the original video needs to be the source of analysis, not a mpeg trashed youtube vid.



posted on Aug, 8 2011 @ 03:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by Zcustosmorum

Originally posted by Lost_Mind
Once again, an object a mile(s) wide would have a preposterous atmospheric shock wave around it even at subsonic speeds. And we would have to "pretend" that it was somehow miraculously exempt from known physics to do what it did and not affect the jet in any way. The more one speculates on this stuff the less real the conclusions become...


On a counter point, from all the UFO reports I've read over, even witnesses saying "the object flew at enormous speeds", I can't recall one ever saying it made a sonic boom or shockwave. There are things we know and things we don't.


Yeah, but we don't use the things we don't know to draw our conclusions on, at least I don't. If you do, you are creating something that isn't. The limit of what is known can be a brick wall sometimes but when new evidence comes around that wall has to be torn down and rebuilt with the new information added to it. I won't form a conclusion based on something I had to make up to explain it.



posted on Aug, 8 2011 @ 04:19 PM
link   
Found this from 1963, Colorado:



Crap quality footage, but for 46 years old it ain't bad. There's obvious similarities here.



posted on Aug, 8 2011 @ 04:27 PM
link   
reply to post by Glassbender777
 


What stationary objects are located at 36,000 ft up ? LOL. Not a bug at that altitude either. Either internal light source reflected in the window or something else.



posted on Aug, 8 2011 @ 04:32 PM
link   
reply to post by Lost_Mind
 


I agree with that up to a point, but as to the light effect I do draw on personal experience of having seen the same type of effect. That turned out to be an aircraft skimming just below the cloudtops, and the visual was just the same except, for the speed, although fast, nothing like that in the OP's link.

The OP has put up a link for discussing the possibilties, now't wrong with that. If nobody wants to discuss that's okay too, but most video is pretty degraded here so we don't have the priviledge of top whack camera work, or super-dooper video. What you can do is discuss, 1 item is the speed for instance, and in both sequences, or is there CGI involved? the vue6/7/8 has some amazing CGI effects, especially in natural sequences,

www.youtube.com...

so even with the best of video it is hard to make any judgements.



posted on Aug, 8 2011 @ 04:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by Zcustosmorum
Found this from 1963, Colorado:



Crap quality footage, but for 46 years old it ain't bad. There's obvious similarities here.


Thats exactly the video I remember.

It is moving faster than the sensor can record, thats maybe why it appears to change shape or jump between frames, either that or it is using just appearing to be distorted by its propulsion, but I go with the faster than teh sensor can capture.

I would love to see one of those highspeed cameras capture something like this for real analysing. The same ones they capture humminbirds or bullets.

My Sony HD camcorder can record (only for short periods) at VERY HIGH capture rates for playback. they market it so you can capture your "golf swing" lol of all things at a very high speed, maybe somebody can hack the Sony HD firmware "golf mode" to capture high speed for LONGER durations.








edit on 8-8-2011 by JennaDarling because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 8 2011 @ 04:46 PM
link   
reply to post by JennaDarling
 



Would be something to pick one of these things up with specialised cameras.

Reason I found it, just watching the classic 1979 UFOs Are Real Documentary.


Google Video Link



posted on Aug, 8 2011 @ 04:54 PM
link   
one thing to keep in mind on new CMOS camera sensors for video is..

Progressive scan sensors if not fast enough can actuallly DISTORT the image wheras Interlaced sensor capture does not.

So if the object moves between full progressive sensor sweeps are completed, the object appears to "bend"

You can see the effect here.



Just something to keep in mind when reviewing high speed objects on video nowdays (especially 720p and 1080p - progressive scans).



posted on Aug, 8 2011 @ 05:38 PM
link   
reply to post by smurfy
 


Agreed with your ending statement. Most of these end up rendering down to a personal revelation for one to ponder for years. I know mine have... I like to debate these types of incidents here just to keep the plate clean so to speak. Without some common sense, bridled critical thinking to counter the blatant fantasy seen here at times there would be no purpose to the site other than to produce fiction for the tabloid set.



posted on Aug, 8 2011 @ 05:46 PM
link   
reply to post by Zcustosmorum
 


Most of the time an Air Traffic controller will pick up anything that is in the near by area. However, I have not yet figured out if the Air Traffic controllers or any Pilots picked this up on radar. Even when these ET crafts cloak and become invisible to the naked eye they can still be picked up by radar most of the time. I'm sure someone must have caught or saw something on the radar. If they did not see anything and it really was there then they probably weren't doing their job right.



posted on Aug, 8 2011 @ 05:49 PM
link   
reply to post by JennaDarling
 


That is a very good idea. I think that people need to start having high speed cameras ready for when this type of stuff happens. That would actually show the true trajectory and possibly many aspects of the craft that we have not seen or did not know about. A high speed camera would be awesome if someone were smart enough to actually use one rather than a cell phone or low quality camera.



posted on Aug, 8 2011 @ 05:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by reresearch
reply to post by JennaDarling
 


That is a very good idea. I think that people need to start having high speed cameras ready for when this type of stuff happens. That would actually show the true trajectory and possibly many aspects of the craft that we have not seen or did not know about. A high speed camera would be awesome if someone were smart enough to actually use one rather than a cell phone or low quality camera.


Sony HD camcorders have highspeed mode for 30 seconds or so tops, called "golf mode".

Somebody needs to hack the Firmware to make this longer than 30 seconds lol.



posted on Aug, 8 2011 @ 05:52 PM
link   
Gah double post.
edit on 8-8-2011 by JennaDarling because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 8 2011 @ 05:54 PM
link   
reply to post by JennaDarling
 


Rather than a Sony HD camera why doesn't someone just buy an actual High Speed camera lol then you wont have to hack the firmware. Id rather spend the money on a good camera than hack the firmware on an old one but that's just me lol



posted on Aug, 8 2011 @ 05:55 PM
link   
A nice little video. The "brightness/contrast" change as some have called it looks more like an adjustment to the shutter speed, which would be controlled manually, and wouldn't just kick in on it's own accord. It's very feasable that the cam operator switched it to a higher shutter speed and at that moment caught the object. That's what shutter speed is all about, catching faster objects - especially ones closer to the lens.

Considering my own experiences and what several other members have said in this thread - these things do seem to exist. Strips of light that move incredibly fast, and from my own own (ground) experience, have always seemed to be around the same height as normal jet-liners. I'd make an educated guess that the object in question is between the length of a bus, to the length of up to two maybe 3 jet liners. I'm afraid I can't really back that claim up with anything as it's based on what I've seen myself, sorry. I'd advise folks not to assume it's "far off in the distance and is huge" - because that's very unlikely, considering mostly the real reports of such objects.

My only gripe with this video is that the speed of the object doesn't seem to be constant, it seems to speed up, almost "flicking" itself off in the distance. But even if it's a hoax, they managed to get the speed and nature of some of the REAL UFO's (that I've seen at least) down to a T. And that is also a good reason for me to somewhat have faith in this video.

I'd be interested to know what direction the jet was heading in, and maybe discern what direction the object was heading in. I have seen these objects but only moving along direct N S E W lines, never NE or SE or anything so that's something I'd like to compare. But other than that - great catch.

Also highly worrying... would be interesting to see if the original person that caught it "cares"... I mean I guess they do to an extent, but whether they are now concerned about flying. I mean, they were nearly impacted by an object moving thousands of miles per hour.


Cool stuff though - thanks for sharing!




top topics



 
23
<< 1  2    4  5 >>

log in

join