UFO Flies Into Popocatépetl Volcano Mexico

page: 7
56
<< 4  5  6    8 >>

log in

join

posted on Oct, 29 2012 @ 05:00 AM
link   
reply to post by Skywatcher2011
 


Skyfish has been debunked www.youtube.com...




posted on Oct, 29 2012 @ 06:37 AM
link   

Originally posted by wtfigo
reply to post by Skywatcher2011
 


Skyfish has been debunked www.youtube.com...


Did you actually watch that video rather than just read the title? It doesnt 'debunk' skyfish or rods at all. They are looking for an explanation, one particular experiment turns up a result of something that looks a bit like a rod but is actually a moth, and then the video cuts off before any conclusion is drawn. The original debunk attempt by the guy talking about frame rates and fields is found to be false half way through the clip, and the sudden cut off of the video leads me to think that they didnt come to any solid conclusions.

Im not saying I even believe in rods, but if you are going to claim something as 'debunked', at least check the evidence.



posted on Oct, 29 2012 @ 07:00 AM
link   
reply to post by Thunda
 


WELL AND TRULY DEBUNKED !!!!!




posted on Oct, 29 2012 @ 07:38 AM
link   

Originally posted by wmd_2008
reply to post by Thunda
 


WELL AND TRULY DEBUNKED !!!!!






No no no, at 0:30 we are seeing 'Light beings' as witnessed by Dr. Greer



posted on Oct, 29 2012 @ 07:47 AM
link   
It has not been that long in the scale of of our universes life that we are just entering high technology. We're babes in the woods sort of speak. We are just starting to see what the big boys on the block can do. And every so often we are lucky enough to see a little tid-bit. Either by a ufo uncloaking itself or too give us a little peep show to wet our appetite to give us glimmers of understanding in helping lift us into our entering the federation of planets.

Ufually it is one on one such as in the case of Gary Wilcox (April 24th 1964) but then there are the mass sightings. As in the case of this one. I highly doubt is was CGI because being broadcasted on the news, they hardly ever show a fake video due to their boss could fire them for fakery and deceit etc.



posted on Oct, 29 2012 @ 08:17 AM
link   
I'm a believer in UFOs, but I'm sorry, this one looks fake. The picture taken by the woman photographer on Crete, that looked real.



posted on Oct, 29 2012 @ 10:52 AM
link   
reply to post by Thunda
 





posted on Oct, 29 2012 @ 02:11 PM
link   
Well, the cigar shaped UFO mentioned for Kentucky has been officially explained and shown as a toy, so this would not be related.

For this video, we are also a victim of perspective.

It's quite possible to see something like this happen with no noticeable result from the volcano if the object in fact went behind it from our point of view instead of going inside it. It could even be that the object did not go down so much as across and away from the camera, but again from our perspective, it made it appear to go into the caldera.

Keep in mind that a UFO doesn't mean alien spacecraft, so this is a UFO currently until someone finds out exactly what it was. Given the lack of turbulence in the smoke from the volcano and lack of response after what would have had to of been the impact, I'd say it's highly likely that perspective is the key problem here.



posted on Oct, 29 2012 @ 08:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by Dashdragon
Well, the cigar shaped UFO mentioned for Kentucky has been officially explained and shown as a toy, so this would not be related.

For this video, we are also a victim of perspective.

It's quite possible to see something like this happen with no noticeable result from the volcano if the object in fact went behind it from our point of view instead of going inside it. It could even be that the object did not go down so much as across and away from the camera, but again from our perspective, it made it appear to go into the caldera.

Keep in mind that a UFO doesn't mean alien spacecraft, so this is a UFO currently until someone finds out exactly what it was. Given the lack of turbulence in the smoke from the volcano and lack of response after what would have had to of been the impact, I'd say it's highly likely that perspective is the key problem here.


Can you please provide a link for the article that officially explains the Kentucky UFO to be a toy?

I noticed an article a couple of days ago speaking along those lines, but it was only a theory, not conclusive proof.

In my opinion the toy looks nothing like the UFO in question, going by the article that i read.

Maybe your source provides more info on the subject.



posted on Oct, 29 2012 @ 10:22 PM
link   
Well I just can see why in the heck a UFO would want to fly into a volcano. There was not a video of it flying back out. If it was a UFO it was a probe taking measurements and readings which were beamed back up.
edit on 29-10-2012 by Reactor because: spelling.



posted on Oct, 30 2012 @ 05:22 PM
link   
The fact that they said that the UFO size is of 1000m long and 200m wide makes me suspicious...

They have no basis to do any calculations here. It could be just above the volcano, or 2 kilometers away.

Looks like a time-lapse video effect, like the one below, with 5 hours night planes activity over Nellis Range complex in 3 minutes. Just pause when the plane just take off or land, their lights are interesting to look at.
I'm not saying that the volcano "ufo" is a plane, but it could be anything as we are dealing here with video effects and artifacts (long exposure, frame rate, etc...)




posted on Oct, 31 2012 @ 08:22 AM
link   
reply to post by elevenaugust
 


If they know exactly how far away the camera was from the volcano as well as the height of the volcano they can probably make some sort of guess as to how big the object/ufo is.

We should start watching/recording other volcanos around the world maybe more of these things are flying in, if in fact something did fly in

Just to add on, i found this article talking about this incident--

Volcano story
edit on 10/31/2012 by H34T533K3R because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 31 2012 @ 08:47 AM
link   
Ok not sure about this but its another story i found, basically, i was trying to read more information on this from spanish websites so I googled "objeto en popocatepetl" which means "Object in popocatepetl", theres a boatload of news stories about this that appear from mexican/spanish websites and one caught my eye, it basically says that other objects fell in as well after the one we saw in the video. If i can find more info ill post it as well.

Story here (in spanish)

Translated:

MEXICO CITY (SUN) The Internet Webcam service recording panoramic images of Mexico (volcano) reveal that on October 25, between 20:54 and 21:42 hours, two luminous objects in the landscape descend and disappear at the height of crater of Popocatepetl.

Objects appear on the horizon minutes after Televisa cameras caught an object entering the crater that day between 20:43 and 20:45 hours.

The timeplapse video shown by "Cams of Mexico" show the first luminous figure appears at 20:54, and at 21:16 It had disappeared into the crater "Don Goyo",

Minutes later, at 21:22 hours, a second object begins its descent, and was gone 21:44 exactly in the same area as the first one shown on TV with a cylindrical shape.

The webcam is located in the town of San Nicolas de los Ranchos, located on the slopes of Popocatepetl volcano, one of the towns closest to the colossus.

On the night of October 26 a light object elongated, and apparently enters the crater of the volcano Popocatepetl, was shown on the news of Joaquin Lopez Doriga.

The image was captured late last night by the company Televisa, which permanently monitors the activity of the colossus.

According to specialists, the object would have dimensions of approximately one kilometer long and 200 meters wide and would move at a speed greater than that of an airplane.

On 27 October, a similar object was recorded by American astronomer Allen Epling, who caught it while he was still in the sky for several minutes east of Kentucky, United States.

------More stories also saying there was more objects------
more objects flew in

Also, in case anyone wants to see the volcano they have these cams set up in this CENAPRED website, its in spanish but towards the middle of page it says "imagen" and you can click on several cam stations, they are not streaming live but get updated every minute or so.

HERE

They do have a few pictures of volcano on the date the object supposedly flew in but there is nothing in the still pictures showing any objects. Also, they have a section where they have daily reports about volcanoe activity and precautions to take and also no mention of any flying object. The reports are here must select the date to see the report.



edit on 10/31/2012 by H34T533K3R because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 31 2012 @ 12:55 PM
link   
This video is damn incredible. It looks very similar to other cylinder cigar shaped ufo videos.

It is most likely that this is a cigar shaped craft, one that has been chased and seen by f-16's and the like.



posted on Oct, 31 2012 @ 01:15 PM
link   
reply to post by wmd_2008
 


My problem with this is, it provides no scientific evidence of anything and actually disproves their hypothesis

I say again, Im not saying rods even exist, but the video provided debunks nothing, and if anyone would accept such flimsy evidence as conclusive proof, then they are more gullible than the worst tinfoil hatter.

It happens all the time on ATS- skeptics point to someones unproven opinion or hypothesis, and go "see? Its fact- thats case closed and debunked"- real double standards when the same skeptics will insist on total scientific proof of any UFO or paranormal anomalies. A truly scientific thinker would apply the same standards of proof to explanations of an everyday kind as they would to the claimant of an unusual event. If it doesnt stand up in their own experiment, then its not 'debunked'.

But hey, if it makes you feel better to believe someone who has a vague theory that you would like to accept as concrete proof, then who am I to try and burst your bubble.



posted on Oct, 31 2012 @ 08:05 PM
link   
WOW. Very very interesting. All I can think about is the idea that volcanoes are entry points to inner earth which means they travel into the earth (into either inner or inter-dimensionally through easier access to the electromagnetic portals/event horizon or w/e that is inside the earth. There is allegedly an event horizons(several mini-blackhoels in the body alleged(the heart being the largest....that valve) AND inside all planets /stars(suns)/bodies/?

Or I coulld be waffling on sorry.

But that is my take. oh...the idea is from: www.youtube.com... [Nassim Haramein]

edit on 31-10-2012 by Neo1eht because: Spelling misake. typographical errors



posted on Oct, 31 2012 @ 11:54 PM
link   

Originally posted by sebHFX
reply to post by Hydrawolf
 


that scientist is trying to rationalize. She's saying that It could be from the video since the object is saturated. No! You see clearly an object getting into the volcano. It seems some people can't believe so they rationalize but their reasoning is stupider than the most far-fetched ufo theories. A flare doesn't have a tubular shape, it's not defined like that. Is it that hard to believe in the unbelievable?


No, you can NOT see an object getting into the volcano, that is an assumption. For all that is known, the object could have continued down the other side of the volcano. There are other videos showing an object approaching the volcano from the left and you'd think that it crashed into the side of the volcano but if you wait you see the object continuing from the right side of the volcano. That means that it went behind it!

If there had been a camera on the opposite side of the volcano, would it have shown the volcano just traveling down the back of the volcano or would it have shown the object entering the volcano?

I don't think the object entered the volcano.

The camera employed may have had its lens set to telephoto which compresses the image giving it a flat view and making it look like the object entered the volcano.



posted on Nov, 1 2012 @ 12:23 AM
link   

I don't think the object entered the volcano.


What does it matter if it entered the crater or not? Are you saying you believe it was an object then?

No matter if it entered the crater, or flew behind the volcano, it would be a huge video. Because going behind would indicate it was even larger than originally determined. Actually flying into the crater or flying behind is secondary to the fact a long bright object flew downwards and was caught on camera.

Question really is just: was it an anomaly due to the light as stated? That's the real question.



posted on Nov, 1 2012 @ 12:31 AM
link   

Originally posted by fleabit

I don't think the object entered the volcano.


What does it matter if it entered the crater or not? Are you saying you believe it was an object then?

No matter if it entered the crater, or flew behind the volcano, it would be a huge video. Because going behind would indicate it was even larger than originally determined. Actually flying into the crater or flying behind is secondary to the fact a long bright object flew downwards and was caught on camera.

Question really is just: was it an anomaly due to the light as stated? That's the real question.


No, I do not believe that it was an object, I accept that it was and I laugh at explanations of "lights", etc. I notice that a lot of members here have bad eyesight or are illogical for they always come out with weird opinions as if they're seeing something that is not on the video or somehow their minds don't allow them to actually see what is really shown.



posted on Nov, 1 2012 @ 03:08 AM
link   

Originally posted by fleabit

I don't think the object entered the volcano.


What does it matter if it entered the crater or not? Are you saying you believe it was an object then?

No matter if it entered the crater, or flew behind the volcano, it would be a huge video. Because going behind would indicate it was even larger than originally determined. Actually flying into the crater or flying behind is secondary to the fact a long bright object flew downwards and was caught on camera.

Question really is just: was it an anomaly due to the light as stated? That's the real question.


It matters for a few reasons thread title for one


Also I would like to see some info on the following as its a time lapse video, camera details make /model exposure details , location, time ,direction the camera was facing.





new topics
top topics
 
56
<< 4  5  6    8 >>

log in

join