UFO Flies Into Popocatépetl Volcano Mexico

page: 8
<< 5  6  7   >>

log in


posted on Nov, 6 2012 @ 07:15 AM

Originally posted by Thunda
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.

How does this NOT debunk what is claimed to be a ROD (see video below)

Normal video camera similar to any used by most youtube ROD believers shows the now classic rod image as it films a moth flying BUT the high speed camera shows it as it is a MOTH.

Now Jose Escamilla (the Rod MAN) has never taken the challenge to do that I wonder why!!!

So everyone can see here it is again!

Now can YOU give a reason why this is not a proper method of proving what rods really are!!! after all YOU dispute it so please educate us all on why it's wrong and how you think it should be done.


posted on Nov, 8 2012 @ 05:45 PM
I think the majority of the "UFOs" we see today can actually be identified, as US drones.

A better title for this video would be "Strategic Disposal of Nuclear Waste by United States."

What better way can you think of disposing of something than by dropping it into a volcano?

posted on Nov, 12 2012 @ 04:22 AM
Some interesting news:

The CENAPRED camera recorded the event as well, at the exact same time of the TELEVISA camera and guess what?...

It's just a fireball!!

The comparison of the two camera views:

The whole sequence viewed from the CENAPRED camera:

Original document in Spanish can be read here

So what we have is just an artificial artifact caused by the technical settings of the TELEVISA camera, due to its higher sensibility to the light and a longer exposure plus a coincidence that makes this fireball appears to be exactly at the line of sight of the top of the volcano.

Case closed...
edit on 12-11-2012 by elevenaugust because: (no reason given)

posted on Nov, 12 2012 @ 08:51 AM
reply to post by elevenaugust

i can't read spanish, so forgive me if this is something addressed in the article
but i would hesitate to slam the case closed so fast...
it certainly looks like the first cam had saturation issues or whatever
but we're still left with an object that swan dives precisely into the mouth of a volcano
makes no noise, and no splash....
and when you say "just" a fireball, are you taking it's size into account? so it's not quite a kilometer long, but it still seems vast for a fireball... do you have any idea from whence it originated?

i guess at least this proves beyond a doubt it was no lens flare!

posted on Nov, 12 2012 @ 01:01 PM
edit on 12-11-2012 by Devilishkitty because: (no reason given)

posted on Nov, 12 2012 @ 02:06 PM
reply to post by decepticonLaura

Unfortunately elevenaugust conveniently omitted to mention or to quote the last part of
the official bulletin by CENAPRED regarding these images it´s clear he is trying unsuccessfully
to debunk this case by cheating, that is by claiming CENAPRED said it is a fact that the UFO
was a fireball, that is not what CENAPRED meant as a fact but as an hypothesis, a posibility,
just that and they made the clarification. I quote the final part of their bulletin.

QUOTE:Cabe señalar que para las dos hipótesis antes señaladas, es necesaria
la validación y análisis exhaustivos a cargo de instituciones y expertos
en áreas de astronomía y ciencias espaciales.

TRANSLATION: It´s important to clarify that for the two hypothesis exposed would be
necessary a deep analysis and validation by institutions and experts y astronomy and
spatial science.

What we have here in this bulletin from CENAPRED is their confirmation of the incident
by presenting their footage sequence from their own Pelco camera in Altzomoni recorded
at the same time that the TELEVISA Panasonic camera also in Altzomoni, the same event
by two cameras wich proved this was not CGI like someone suggested nor a failiure of the
camera, a glitsch etc. And because they received massive requests by the mexican media
to explain the incident people from CENAPRED unable to offer a solid explanation based in
facts they just suggested what this phenomena could have been, two hypothesis BUT NOT
as a fact like elevenaugust wants people to believe with the fireball speculation, elevenaugust
is trying to put words in CENAPRED´s people mouths as I proved here, he only translated the
word fireball but ignored the statements at the end of the bulletin, how convenient.

Case closed? Not yet.

posted on Nov, 12 2012 @ 07:17 PM
reply to post by free_spirit

Whats more likely a fireball or a ufo !!!!!

posted on Nov, 13 2012 @ 07:13 AM
reply to post by wmd_2008

Sorry for the delay, wmd- just saw your post- hope you havent been 'holding your breath'

You said "Now can YOU give a reason why this is not a proper method of proving what rods really are!!! after all YOU dispute it so please educate us all on why it's wrong and how you think it should be done."

My problem with the videos you have chosen to show is that a) the first one (the one where the guy is claiming its an artifact of the 'fields' that make up a frame of video) is edited- by pressing stop- before the commentator comes back with the next bit of video showing an odd number of wings, which disproves the 'fields' analysis, and this is admitted in the documentary. The second piece of video does indeed show a moth, on both a high speed and normal video camera, but under a very specific set of circumstances- at night, with a very strong light close to the camera, and the moth very close to the camera. This does indeed produce an artifact similar to SOME of the so-called 'rods' videos, but not all. What about when they have been filmed at extreme speed, in broad daylight in the mid distance? There is a very famous video of the guy who filmed something you would describe as a 'rod' travelling at speed and altitude over (I think it was) NYC, and when he sent his video into the TV station, he was contacted by the FBI as it bore a resemblance to a missile.

All Im saying is, the videos put forward some ideas, and in some circumstances, their experiments came back with similar artifacts. But they did not experiment in every situation (lighting, distance etc) to debunk the phenomena completely. Im not even saying (for the third time) I even believe in rods as some sort of alien craft etc, but neither do I except sweeping statements of 'this is now completely debunked' when it clearly isnt.

posted on Nov, 13 2012 @ 08:21 AM
reply to post by Thunda

First of all I didn't post or refer to the first video!

Guess what NOT all rods are MOTHS but insects and as you saw even birds can take on a similar shape.

Jose Escamilla (THE ROD MAN) would not film rods using a high fps camera because it would show insects, he REFUSED to do it when challenged.

Lets see you find one youtube rod video filmed with a high fps camera with details of the camera settings used lets see how long you take to respond to that!

Just to add if you DON'T know the actual size of an object or its distance YOU cant work out a speed.

Jose Escamilla was guilty of that !
edit on 13-11-2012 by wmd_2008 because: (no reason given)

posted on Nov, 13 2012 @ 09:57 AM
reply to post by wmd_2008

Oh dear- really seem to have hit a nerve. Will your next response be all in block capitals?

Ok, so first of all, you did respond to the first video by posting 'WELL AND TRULY DEBUNKED !!!!!' in response to me saying that the first video did not debunk anything- and all this 'evidence' is from the same documentary- or are you saying that you dont believe the first explanation, but the second is correct?

And so now, just to please you, you want me to find, let me see if I can remember all the specifics- a film of a 'rod' (assuming they exist), filmed with a very high fps camera, with all the details of the camera settings, and Im to do this very quickly (as you are taking note of how long it takes me), and to remember that you cant work out the speed of an object without knowing its size or distance from the camera (duh!)

Did I get all that? Was that all? I tell you what, shall I see if I can put the camera on a tripod, so its not all shakey, and will I try and get a UFO and bigfoot at the same time? How about no. Why exactly would I go out of my way to do all that? Just to keep you happy?

The sad thing is, even if someone did provide you with that sort of evidence, you still wouldnt accept it.

posted on Nov, 14 2012 @ 06:10 AM
reply to post by Thunda

Actually Thunda I first replied to YOUR claim that the first video was wrong and rods hadn't been debunked by saying they had and linking to the second video!

Rods are various types of insects and possibly birds at a greater distance and the effect is cause by a combination of factors releting to fps/shutter speed and the speed of the object.

Many strange effects can happen because of the above factors even more so now that most people shoot with digital. I have done photography for 30+ using various equipment from an old manual film SLR ,point and shoot digitals,mini dv video cameras to a modern Sony Digital SLT camera.

Can you ever recall watching a western/or a car chase were the wheels of the wagon/car appear to be rotating backwards although they were going fowards that is a similar effect.

Here are some interesting effects that can happen.

Now do you think the blades turn into boomerangs

Or how about this an anti-grav helicopter

Jose Escamilla(the Rod Man) REFUSED to shoot rods with a high speed camera after all who would buy his BS dvd's etc then!

He and others want to keep up the myth that they are an unknown creature after all its a business for Jose and his type, look at many of his videos and his BS claims!

Here is the man himself churning out his BS! watch from about 2:23 care to explain who he worked out the size of his supposed rod!

You even see him near the end of the video (5:03) using his BOG STANDARD consumer video camera!

posted on Nov, 14 2012 @ 07:15 AM
reply to post by wmd_2008

Hey wmd- thanks for all the links- Im afraid the bottom one is such poor quality that you cant really tell whats going on, but I should be able to track it down elsewhere.

This really isnt (I hope) a pis£$%^g contest, but I do hold an Msc in Electronic Imaging, so you dont need to school me in video effects, glitches and by-products- you werent to know that though, so I can see where your coming from.

My problem,as I keep repeating, isnt on whether rods exist or not, but the level of proof required to say 'this is 100% debunked'. That is what I have said in every post in the thread, and as you obviously arent daft, you must admit, the experiments in the original documentary are not enough to say that. Now with other experiments, research and analysis added, then maybe you have come to the conclusion that, in your eyes, in every circumstances, you can debunk every piece of film of a 'rod', and thats fair enough. Personally, I havent done enough research into the subject to come to a concrete decision either way- mainly through my own laziness and not caring enough about the subject matter.

However, I say again, in the original video, the first claim of an explanation is that of the two fields that make up the single frame of video being responsible. As a person who understands video, you know why this is wrong, and its proven to be incorrect in the documentary itself (although may be, in certain specific circumstances, might give a similar effect).

Second explanation follows the experiment with the powerful light against a totally dark background with the insect very close to the camera lens- and yes, it does indeed give a result similar to some of the rod footage. However, these are again, a very specific set of circumstances and does not come close to covering all the circumstances which the so called 'rods' have been filmed in. And this is my problem- it is not, by far, an inclusive enough experiment to be able to say that it conclusively rules out the existence of 'rods'.

Now, please, for the last time- I dont care whether rods exist or not- what I do care about is making conclusive statements without having enough information. If, lets say, the experiment hadnt worked (no bugs around or something), and any of the pro rod people had said 'look!- this conclusively proves the existence of 'rods'' I would have the same problem, and would have called them on it- as Im sure you would have too. We have to have the same standards for the de-bunkers as we do the believers.

Hope that clears things up, as we are both way off topic here.

posted on Nov, 15 2012 @ 08:55 AM
reply to post by Thunda

Thanks for the reply will send you a pm later

posted on Nov, 16 2012 @ 05:48 PM
UFO comes out of the volcano Popocatépetl, Nov 15, 2012

posted on Nov, 18 2012 @ 07:30 PM
reply to post by Hydrawolf

Could possibly be god dropping his light saber from heaven XD

all jokes aside, this is pretty interesting, i could possibly be something from nASA

posted on Jul, 29 2013 @ 04:56 AM
reply to post by Hydrawolf

I have a thread about a similar sighting I had a few years ago. Another member of ATS said his wife also saw it, as we both lived within an hour of each other. Will see if I can find a link for the thread. This volcano in particular seems to be extremely active as I was going through Youtube there are multiple sightings of UFOs entering this volcano. It is definitely worth looking into further.

top topics
<< 5  6  7   >>

log in