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.

 

Debunk this: New UFO Video taken at night over Campinas, Brazil.

page: 14
49
<< 11  12  13    15 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 10 2012 @ 01:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by Phage
reply to post by FlySolo
 

I don't see anything falling, there is no point of reference. In fact the description is that they were rising.

You have no way of knowing how long the LEDs may have been on before the balloons were released. A party perhaps, with the balloons released after being tethered for a while for people to enjoy.

edit on 1/10/2012 by Phage because: (no reason given)


I went back to watch again. The strobe effect can create the illusion of rising/falling and they do somewhat appear to be rising. However, I've got my eye on the top light that remains stationary and use that as a reference point to the others. There are some anomalous behaviors. I can clearly see falling with some of them. Especially around the 1:30 mark.

The lights are ejecting out of the top bright one.
edit on 10-1-2012 by FlySolo because: (no reason given)




posted on Jan, 10 2012 @ 01:52 PM
link   
reply to post by FlySolo
 

All that can be seen is relative motion in a 2 dimensional perspective. Since the photographer is tracking the lights and there are no reference points there is no way of knowing the absolute motion of any of the lights.



posted on Jan, 10 2012 @ 01:55 PM
link   
reply to post by Phage
 


Please indulge me and go back to the 1:30 mark. You can clearly see falling from the top light. No camera tracking at that point.

From the 2 min mark I can count 17 new lights in 19 seconds originating from the top light. It is absolutely unequivocally impossible for rising balloon theory.
edit on 10-1-2012 by FlySolo because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 10 2012 @ 02:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by FlySolo
reply to post by Phage
 


Please indulge me and go back to the 1:30 mark. You can clearly see falling from the top light. No camera tracking at that point.
It does indeed appear that way to me, but Phage's point is, and I agree, that just because it appears so, doesn't mean that's what's happening.

An example would be the way a plane appears to hover motionless as it's landing if you are reasonably close to the landing glide path. It's not really hovering, but many witnesses correctly describe that it appears that way.

If appearances aren't deceiving (and they might be deceiving us) it looks like lights being ejected at altitude and descending to me as well.



posted on Jan, 10 2012 @ 02:07 PM
link   
reply to post by Arbitrageur
 


I know what you are saying but again, the apples and oranges analogy. The stationary light can not be a light moving towards the viewer and yet have the effect of movement too and fro from the lights below. They would all be moving in the same direction caused by law of inertia.

Take a look at the 2 min mark now and count the lights as they appear above, not below...



posted on Jan, 10 2012 @ 02:22 PM
link   
reply to post by FlySolo
 

As I said, it's a 2 dimensional perspective. Just because the lights move "down" in the frame does not mean they are falling. They could be but we can't tell. Horizontal movement can display the same appearance as vertical movement. Notice also that some of the "falling" objects start "rising". I don't see falling. I see lights displaying random movement. The zooming in and out doesn't help.

It could easily include a pyrotechnic display. A balloon string with fireworks and cigarette type timers maybe. At around 2:58 there seems to be smoke visible.

It's cool but nothing to get overly excited about.


edit on 1/10/2012 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 10 2012 @ 02:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by FlySolo
They would all be moving in the same direction caused by law of inertia.
The law of inertia also applies to balloons, however the mass of a balloon is low and the surface area to mass ratio is large such that inertial effects are often dwarfed by things like eddy currents in the air with regard to balloon motion. I won't say inertial effects are nonexistent with balloons, but they are often dominated by air movement.

Regarding the example I gave, it was merely to illustrate that we can't conclude exactly what is happening in 3 dimensions from a 2-dimensional perspective such as we have in this video. I wasn't trying to say whether the objects are moving toward or away from us, but rather we don't know if they are.
edit on 10-1-2012 by Arbitrageur because: clarification



posted on Jan, 10 2012 @ 02:33 PM
link   
I think these are LEDs in small birthday ballons....

Just another 1000000th ATS post regarding small pixels in the sky which reveals nothings.



posted on Jan, 10 2012 @ 02:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by Phage
reply to post by FlySolo
 

As I said, it's a 2 dimensional perspective. Just because the lights move "down" in the frame does not mean they are falling. They could be but we can't tell. Horizontal movement can display the same appearance as vertical movement. Notice also that some of the "falling" objects start "rising". I don't see falling. I see lights displaying random movement.

It could easily include a pyrotechnic display. A balloon string with fireworks and cigarette type timers maybe. At around 2:58 there seems to be smoke visible.

It's cool but nothing to get overly excited about.



I'm not excited. I'm rather grounded actually. But I am detail orientated and for the life of me, I can't understand why no one sees the significance of these small details. I agree with what you are saying, but you are ignoring a big detail in the fine lines. The camera is not panning to give the illusion of movement yet one light falls while just above it, the light is stationary ejecting 17 other lights in 19 seconds. How can this be explained as rising balloons? Regardless of 2d images.

Blanket statements concerning UFOs must be stopped without dissecting every point made to show they are indeed balloons.

Two major points on the skeptic side are:
1) Illusion of rising, therefore they must be balloons
Argument: They are not rising but moving in multiple directions and falling IMO
2) LED lights
Argument: coincidental battery drain on all lights not probable

But lets forget about those two and move on the the biggie. How is it possible for the other lights to appear out of the top one if they are "rising"



posted on Jan, 10 2012 @ 02:39 PM
link   
reply to post by Arbitrageur
 


Fine. But I'm more concerned about pointing out the inconsistencies in the balloon theory. There are anomalous behaviors that don't jive that no one wants to talk about.



posted on Jan, 10 2012 @ 02:50 PM
link   
reply to post by FlySolo
 


But lets forget about those two and move on the the biggie. How is it possible for the other lights to appear out of the top one if they are "rising"


Again, you are assuming "above" and "falling". We don't know the perspective. Have you considered how it would affect the viewpoint if the lights were directly overhead? In that case everything you see as vertical movement would be horizontal. This applies to an oblique view as well. There is no way of judging the absolute movement of the lights.

As to where the lights "appear" from, that (and what seems to be smoke) is what makes me think of a pyrotechnic (fireworks) display. But it could also be nothing more than a cluster of lights separating, since the "source" seems to get dimmer.

edit on 1/10/2012 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 10 2012 @ 03:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by FlySolo
reply to post by Arbitrageur
 


Fine. But I'm more concerned about pointing out the inconsistencies in the balloon theory. There are anomalous behaviors that don't jive that no one wants to talk about.
I mentioned in my first post in this thread they looked like they were falling out of a lighter than air balloon to me, except for the source which as Phage said looks like it's either rising or at least becoming smaller and more distant, which I interpreted to be consistent with a lighter than air balloon..

So I thought one possibility is that some type of lighter than air balloon might be the source, and being released from it (or pulled from it) are smaller balloons, which seem to be connected by a string, and appear to be mostly falling. But again this could be false impression due to lack of 3D perspective.

Regarding the lights going out at roughly the same time, what if the battery is in the source, lighter than air balloon, and the "string" that connects them is some thin wires that supplies the power to the other lights? Then if the battery dies in the source, or if the source becomes disconnected, the lights would all go out at the same time. The flashing out sequence is probably more consistent with a dying battery than with a disconnection but either is possible. You do raise a good question about the lights blinking out together.



posted on Jan, 10 2012 @ 03:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by FlySolo

Originally posted by Human_Alien
reply to post by greeneyedleo
 


Skydivers? For what purpose?
Hoping someone will see this---- and grab their camera-----then upload it on YouTube----- so they (the skydivers) can have their 15-minutes of anonymous fame? Are you serious? It makes no sense.

Man oh man. I mean c'mon. Coming up with some of these explanations is scary than the actual implication of these being genuine alien vessels.



As much as I dislike Leo's mundane answers regarding ufo's, I also have a problem with ridicule that tries to come off as an argument. Yes, night jumpers wear lights. Arguing like that never helps.



Been reading your replies and seems we're on the same 'doubting divers' side.

I read the "batteries dying all at once" and really wonder if people actually buy, what's trying to be sold.

I am a firm believer not everything is explainable as much as that pains the debunkers to read.



posted on Jan, 10 2012 @ 03:31 PM
link   
reply to post by FlySolo
 


Where did I ever mention balloons falling on a mountain? The video I linked clearly was showing hikers with headlamps/lights climbing a mountain. No balloons...



posted on Jan, 10 2012 @ 03:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by Human_Alien

Originally posted by FlySolo

Originally posted by Human_Alien
reply to post by greeneyedleo
 


Skydivers? For what purpose?
Hoping someone will see this---- and grab their camera-----then upload it on YouTube----- so they (the skydivers) can have their 15-minutes of anonymous fame? Are you serious? It makes no sense.

Man oh man. I mean c'mon. Coming up with some of these explanations is scary than the actual implication of these being genuine alien vessels.





As much as I dislike Leo's mundane answers regarding ufo's, I also have a problem with ridicule that tries to come off as an argument. Yes, night jumpers wear lights. Arguing like that never helps.



Been reading your replies and seems we're on the same 'doubting divers' side.

I read the "batteries dying all at once" and really wonder if people actually buy, what's trying to be sold.

I am a firm believer not everything is explainable as much as that pains the debunkers to read.


It's a steep hill to climb. Yes, we are both on the same side but I've learned not to act emotionally to the frustration. However, don't argue with mod. I got a warning I'll be excommunicated if I do it again.



posted on Jan, 10 2012 @ 03:34 PM
link   

Originally posted by gavron
reply to post by FlySolo
 


Where did I ever mention balloons falling on a mountain? The video I linked clearly was showing hikers with headlamps/lights climbing a mountain. No balloons...


You didn't. I was aiming at a tree culprit for the blinking lights. I assumed they were falling because they look like they're falling. A moot point on my part



posted on Jan, 10 2012 @ 04:05 PM
link   
Hi, i live in Illinois about 40 min south of Chicago, about 2 days i saw a strait beam of light,going up and down, by the moon(it wasn't the halo). The beam must have been 1000 ft long (pulsating redish-orange in color), with what looked like a metalic orb shining a white-orange in the center.

I didn't have a camera on me. By the time i saw it from the time it disappeared, was about 30 min.

Sorry to post in this thread. This should a thread of its own. I cant post threads yet, and i didn't see any on the light and object i saw.



posted on Jan, 10 2012 @ 04:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by FlySolo


It's a steep hill to climb. Yes, we are both on the same side but I've learned not to act emotionally to the frustration. However, don't argue with mod. I got a warning I'll be excommunicated if I do it again.



At last, we disagree.
I feel I'm on the down-hill (easy) side of the mountain. Because honestly?.... the: 'divers' and 'LED toys' and 'lanterns' and 'remote control planes' and 'Christmas lights' all seem like the tougher workout.

Trying to apply human logic to an otherwise, strange looking event seems like a tremendously difficult slippery slope to climb.

So I'm gliding downhill just fine by calling this a UFO



posted on Jan, 10 2012 @ 04:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by Human_Alien

Originally posted by FlySolo


It's a steep hill to climb. Yes, we are both on the same side but I've learned not to act emotionally to the frustration. However, don't argue with mod. I got a warning I'll be excommunicated if I do it again.



At last, we disagree.
I feel I'm on the down-hill (easy) side of the mountain. Because honestly?.... the: 'divers' and 'LED toys' and 'lanterns' and 'remote control planes' and 'Christmas lights' all seem like the tougher workout.

Trying to apply human logic to an otherwise, strange looking event seems like a tremendously difficult slippery slope to climb.

So I'm gliding downhill just fine by calling this a UFO





Oh I know. It's much like a lie to cover a lie to cover a lie. It gets exhausting. When the easier path is to just stop denial and admit it's unexplainable. Any old idea can be thrown out there to explain away this phenomenon but the problem begins when those ideas can't be substantiated. it goes on and on and on...



posted on Jan, 10 2012 @ 06:06 PM
link   
reply to post by CountDrac
 


They don't speak Spanish in Brazil....



new topics

top topics



 
49
<< 11  12  13    15 >>

log in

join