please digitally analyze this footage?

reply to post by bottleslingguy


Photo analysis is a different approach for known images and defects and such.
Well sure perhaps the chorus of suggestions have stopped but perhaps some
real analysis is taking place.

Detailed light and other analysis can be sought but I got a story from one
that the analysis company didn't want to analyze UFOs. The dark cloud
is naturally caused by air in a mode of emitting violet light. Who has ever
devised such thing to cause that in mid air. We can only speculate Tesla
and the rest of the universe stands by standard accepted reasons far away
from the Tesla speculation.

Originally posted by Skepticesque
This cannot even be categorized as a UFO.

An unidentified flying object, often abbreviated UFO or U.F.O., is an unusual apparent anomaly in the sky that is not readily identifiable to the observer as any known object.

It's not in the sky, nor is it flying. It looks completely normal -- unless rocks are somehow aliens in disguise.

have you downloaded the original files and three stills? if not how did you come to your conclusion? and by the way that joke about the aliens in disguise was so funny I forgot to laugh

Originally posted by dejarmaX
... this is a perfect example of trying to make something out of nothing---- it's probably something in the sea by the looks of it....

so that's your final answer? you looked at the youtube compression version and made up your mind? how about for the sake of the argument you download the two videos and three stills first, then tell me what you think. maybe you are missing something? and if you are wrong then you can say you've seen a bona fide ufo. what do you have to loose? come on deny that ignorance!

Originally posted by bottleslingguy
do you have any idea why no one is paying any attention to this thread?

Sure. The evidence is not all that great. Even at the highest resolution, it's incredibly difficult to say what the thing is. And even if it was crystal clear it's just an image. The most anybody could possibly say about it would be that there is some kind of "object" in the air above the rocks. What kind of object? Who knows? A balloon, maybe? A remote alien probe from Epsilon Eridani? There's no way to tell.

So you can imagine that if that's the best possible result of a detailed investigation, maybe people wouldn't be all that interested in it, because like pretty much all UFO evidence, it doesn't answer any questions but just creates more.

Originally posted by TeslaandLyne
Well sure perhaps the chorus of suggestions have stopped but perhaps some
real analysis is taking place.

take for example our conversation regarding the gravitational effects of a hovering ship being the cause of this. Are the skeptics not telling us how crazy we sound because they think we are correct? Could that be true? Have they given up? I'm fine with it being a gravitational vortex of sorts left in the wake of an electrogravitic craft hovering higher up possibly taking in the sights same as myself and my wife that day. People have asked me what I thought the aliens were doing there, so why not?

thing is, it would be nice two weeks later to hear from Springer, "hey just letting you know Jeff got the email and is taking a look this week. I had some time to download all the awesome files you provided to make your case, as we love people to do around here, and watched on my awesome A/V system at home and holy crap I can't tell WHAT THAT THING IS!" or something to that effect

Originally posted by Blue Shift
And even if it was crystal clear it's just an image. The most anybody could possibly say about it would be that there is some kind of "object" in the air above the rocks. What kind of object? Who knows? A balloon, maybe? A remote alien probe from Epsilon Eridani? There's no way to tell.

So you can imagine that if that's the best possible result of a detailed investigation, maybe people wouldn't be all that interested in it, because like pretty much all UFO evidence, it doesn't answer any questions but just creates more.

dude deny ignorance, it's not a balloon. how is a balloon going to sit motionless for several minutes in that wind? seriously

there ARE ways to tell it's not a balloon or a kite or a bird, it's called common sense once you've looked at all the visual evidence regardless of the resolution. I stated earlier that once you determine it is not in or on the water (which can't be done without looking at the best quality playback) and the direction of the strong wind and the fact there is no one out there on a boat holding a kite or balloon, your option of what it could be are pretty close to one. It is out in the middle of the Pacific Ocean in an area of the island that sees not much boating traffic except for the occasional fisherman and it's not like I am looking up at a blank sky or trying to convince people it is more than lights on a black background. There are really crappy videos on this site that people spend weeks discussing even after they've been determined to be either hoaxes or there is just not enough visual evidence to say anything more about it. There are also interesting videos and photos that get brushed aside within one page (this one for example was "mistakenly" put in the trash bin immediately) or one of the stalwarts comes out from their slumber to poohpooh it with the old "I am smarter than you, so my word is finality" routine and then the sychophants scatter while making jokes and insults. I've been around here long enough to see that dynamic plain as day.

anywho, why not post some zoomed views or highlighted video areas to support your "it's nothing" hypothesis? are you saying that because this is a true ufo or ufo effect and it raises more questions it should be ignored? are you suggesting because there is obviously something there that may not be understandable, we should forget about it? go back to sleep kinda thing? were you paid to say that?

Originally posted by bottleslingguy
dude deny ignorance, it's not a balloon. how is a balloon going to sit motionless for several minutes in that wind? seriously

Well, then it's not a balloon. Here's a 3-D stereo reconstruction made from frames of the video. The camera moved a little bit to the right between frames, not much, but just enough to create a stereo image. Earlier image on the right, later on the left.

You just have to cross your eyes and line everything up. The near rocks are near and you can see the shoreline get farther away.



What you see is that the black dot is most likely sitting on the ocean behind the rock outcropping. The rock outcrop appears to be closer to the camera than the black dot. The ocean is relatively calm in that one spot, and it doesn't move a lot. So I'm thinking that it was a dark clump of seaweed or something possibly attached to a rock underwater. It's not regular shaped. Not a perfect sphere or anything. And it changes shape (right to left in time). It gets smaller and vanishes, likely sinking either on its own, or because the tide is coming in.

See for yourself and believe it or not. Deny ignorance yourself.

have you downloaded the original files and three stills? if not how did you come to your conclusion? and by the way that joke about the aliens in disguise was so funny I forgot to laugh

You're seeing what you want to see. You're defensive when opposed, thus insecure because you know your belief is shaky at best.

I don't need to stoop to a child-like mentality to respond to that last sentence.

This was in the paper the next day then no one talked about it, i've seen these lights for my whole life, this is 100% Canadian proof!
Niagara Falls Ontario Canada, I live in welland ontario and you can see the lights from the falls about 10-15 minute drive.
DEBUNK THIS?!?!

www.youtube.com...

Originally posted by Skepticesque

have you downloaded the original files and three stills? if not how did you come to your conclusion? and by the way that joke about the aliens in disguise was so funny I forgot to laugh

You're seeing what you want to see. You're defensive when opposed, thus insecure because you know your belief is shaky at best.

I don't need to stoop to a child-like mentality to respond to that last sentence.

and you completely avoided my question

reply to post by Barrick

I'm not interested in lights on a dark background repeated over and over.

reply to post by Blue Shift

you say it's a clump of seaweed stuck to a rock but there is no rock there. if there was a rock there the water would be shallow and the waves would break just as you see them clearly breaking around the other rocks. there are even white caps in the deeper water. not to mention there is not one other single shred of seaweed anywhere to be found. don't you find that quite interesting?

here's a gif i made of the best close up i could get with various filters, no clue what it is, just trying to bring out any subtle details. hope it's helpful

Originally posted by RoScoLaz
here's a gif i made of the best close up i could get with various filters, no clue what it is, just trying to bring out any subtle details. hope it's helpful

maybe try some kind of edge defining tool or the embossing tool?

thanks for the help

Originally posted by Blue Shift
It gets smaller and vanishes, likely sinking either on its own, or because the tide is coming in.

on this point- if you can see the difference between the sand and lava UNDER the surface probably around 20 + - feet, why would the dark spot disappear? and the tides in Hawaii are almost unnoticeable like varying within one foot so anything even one foot under the surface like a rock is going to disturb the water in that wind condition. These are bits of visual information that "lights on a black sky" videos don't have and it makes me wonder why such smart people can't figure that out or at least consider it as a bit of information but they don't even pay attention to it. I don't get it

and you know your whole theory of seaweed stuck to a rock rises and falls with the rock having to be there or else the "seaweed" would have moved from that spot within the time I was recording not to mention the few minutes earlier from inside the car. it never moves and you have to take that into consideration if you are going to say you know what it is or at least why you think it is that specific thing. You can't ignore the specifics of this video because unlike the black sky ufos that don't provide tangible visual details, this one boxes it in and keeps it from squeezing out through all the unknowns of a black sky, featureless background and hands it to you on a silver platter.

I still think its probably a Hawaiian Monk Seal .

The growing population there was approximately 150 as of 2004. Individuals have been sighted in surf breaks and on beaches in Kauaʻi, Niʻihau and Maui.
en.wikipedia.org...

reply to post by bottleslingguy


I figured that first sentence was relevant, considering, yes, I did indeed download the original files and three stills. Do you need everything spelled out for you? Clearly.

reply to post by Skepticesque

no and it's apparent you have no sense of humor or at least use a double standard when making jokes. can dish it out but can't take it

Originally posted by gortex
I still think its probably a Hawaiian Monk Seal .

The growing population there was approximately 150 as of 2004. Individuals have been sighted in surf breaks and on beaches in Kauaʻi, Niʻihau and Maui.
en.wikipedia.org...

a gigantic dead one held in place with an anchor? it would be around a half mile away from me if it is in the water and that means it would be about the size of a truck. they don't get that big.

Seems as though Jeff Ritzmann an highly respected digital analyzer of ufo videos can not identify what this object is hovering over the water. Can you say UFO??? thanks Jeff!!!

Too bad nobody here cares about real ufos.